3 ms·

If you want to talk history, from 1850-1950 America was explicitly protectionist and went from a primarily agricultural society to the world's premier industria

by csense 10y ago

If you want to talk history, from 1850-1950 America was explicitly protectionist and went from a primarily agricultural society to the world's premier industrial superpower. - The Marshall Plan (1950's?) was mostly with Europe where there were/are reasonably strong protections against exploitation, so there wasn't the same "race to the bottom" dynamic as there is with, say, China/Mexico/SE Asia today. - Europe's population is a lot smaller than China and their industrial base had just been destroyed by WW2. An economy that's overall protectionist and otherwise strong can absorb the costs of a little free trade, it's doing a lot of free trade that dials up the pain society-disrupting levels. - Costs of transport have gone way down since the 1950's (more available capital, technology, standardized shipping containers, cheaper/better communications, etc.)

WorldMaker 10y ago
1850-1940 America also had terrible income distribution (the Robber Baron age), barely a middle class, and suffered through it's greatest economic depression. If the goal is to preserve middle class American prosperity/stability/existence as people would recognize it today, the suburban dreams of the 1950s/1960s/1970s we're looking at the post-1940s post-Marshall Plan ever increasingly global free trade, not a return to 1850-1940 protectionism and Robber Baron politics. As I tried to note before, the Marshall Plan and free trade with Europe was as much simply the start and the emblem of the era, many free trade deals followed the Marshall Plan. China today, other than red scare reasons, isn't much different from India decades ago, as one example. Mexico today is healthier than when the US first started free trade deals with them decades ago... The "race to the bottom" has always been a part of the post-Marshall Plan expansionist era: find new cheaper supplier countries, complexly wire them into the global economy, slowly encourage smarter regulations and a greater cost of living, use a "rising tide floats all boats" bootstrap to better civilization both at home and abroad. For the most part that strategy seemed to work. Better at least than many economic experiments in the history of human civilization.

by csense 10y ago

WorldMaker 10y ago

1850-1940 America also had terrible income distribution (the Robber Baron age), barely a middle class, and suffered through it's greatest economic depression. If the goal is to preserve middle class American prosperity/stability/existence as people would recognize it today, the suburban dreams of the 1950s/1960s/1970s we're looking at the post-1940s post-Marshall Plan ever increasingly global free trade, not a return to 1850-1940 protectionism and Robber Baron politics. As I tried to note before, the Marshall Plan and free trade with Europe was as much simply the start and the emblem of the era, many free trade deals followed the Marshall Plan. China today, other than red scare reasons, isn't much different from India decades ago, as one example. Mexico today is healthier than when the US first started free trade deals with them decades ago... The "race to the bottom" has always been a part of the post-Marshall Plan expansionist era: find new cheaper supplier countries, complexly wire them into the global economy, slowly encourage smarter regulations and a greater cost of living, use a "rising tide floats all boats" bootstrap to better civilization both at home and abroad. For the most part that strategy seemed to work. Better at least than many economic experiments in the history of human civilization.