> Protectionism _destroys wealth creation_, hands down, period. The cost of protectionism is that the service you are "protecting" is now more expensive to your

> Protectionism _destroys wealth creation_, hands down, period. The cost of protectionism is that the service you are "protecting" is now more expensive to your own citizens. It sounds like you're reciting from an econ 101 textbook here. Let's speak a little more concretely. Take an Uber competitor - do you really envisage a dramatic price difference, particularly once you take Uber's war-chest gouging out of the equation? They still have to compete with local competitors (i.e. cabs), so there doesn't appear to be tons of wiggle room for this tax on consumers. Even allowing for a slight consumer advantage from a globally competitive ride sharing service, I don't think you've conclusively demonstrated that those negatives necessarily outweigh the benefits of fostering local business. Put plainly, I perceive more benefit in my neighbor having a job than I do in saving $1 on a 10 minute ride sharing trip across town. > Additionally, the level of success required for their business is not at a "playpin" level-- if they can be successful in the hypothetical non-protectionist chinese market, then they can be successful anywhere in the world with an open market Sure, this hypothetical company is hypothetically competitive - but how competitive is it going to be if it doesn't exist in the first place? Seems more than a little unrealistic for any company to tackle Google on an even playing field.