4 ms·

Setting aside the debatable morality of nationalism, protectionism just doesn't work well in the long term. A good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Setting aside the debatable morality of nationalism, protectionism just doesn't work well in the long term. A good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism > There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade, deregulation, and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth. In fact protectionism has been implicated by some scholars as the cause of some economic crises, in particular the Great Depression.

chii 8y ago
> There is a consensus among economists I dont know if such consensus is really justified (since these economists could be politically/ideologically biased). However, the wikipedia article did not mention the other side of the coin - namely, what protectionism does, and if it has any benefits (and drawbacks). Protectionism exists in the financial sectors (in which a majority of wealth is being created in the USA). I suspect that those that argue for free trade only argues for free trade for things they benefit from (but protectionism for things that might hurt themselves - even if free trade overall helps others).
- antidesitter 8y ago
  I dont know if such consensus is really justified (since these economists could be politically/ideologically biased). Do you have evidence for this, or are you just saying it because you don't like the conclusion?
h4b4n3r0 8y ago
There was a "consensus among economists" that US economy would tank under Trump, and that it can't grow at anything over 3%, and that "those jobs are not coming back". To quote Paul Krugman, the perennial darling of progressive intelligentsia: "No, you could make me total dictator to do everything I think would work and it still wouldn’t get you up more than a few tenths." There's a reason why economics is not considered a real science: economists have a hard time explaining the past, let alone predicting the future. Their "consensus" is not usually worth the paper it's printed on.
- pastage 8y ago
  Was there really a consensus or did you just read some new article stating that, even stating that Zimbabwes economy would thank under Mugabe was not something economist had found consensus for.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > There was a "consensus among economists" that US economy would tank under Trump, No, there wasn't. At most, there was concensus that certain policies he proposed would have adverse impact, but not all of those policies were implemented, and policies rarely have their full impact within a 1-2 year period. > and that it can't grow at anything over 3%, No, there wasn't. > and that "those jobs are not coming back" To the extent that there has ever even a widespread belief among economists, much less a consensus on that, it was (and is) on the long-term trend in certain sectors, not about the absence of positive short-term fluctuations. > Paul Krugman, the perennial darling of progressive intelligentsia Krugman isn't a progressive or particularly a favorite of progressives. The darlings of the progressive intelligentsia don't generally have gigs in the corporate media.
  - h4b4n3r0 8y ago
    Here's an article for you from May 2017 that summarizes the views of the economic "science" establishment at the time: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-3percent-20170519-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-3percent-20170.... It aged so poorly it's pretty hilarious to read now. I'll leave the rest of your missive without comment.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > There was a "consensus among economists" that US economy would tank under Trump Not among any economists I talk to or read. (Which is the bulk of the mainstream.) The consensus was “tax cuts are real, tariffs are bluster.” Hence the stock market rally. The moment the second part was proved untrue, the rally faltered (but has not stalled).
- dang 8y ago
  Please stop doing political and ideological flamewar on Hacker News.
adventured 8y ago
Protectionism works just fine long-term. Almost every country on earth uses various degrees of protectionism, and all large economies do. They use combinations of tariffs and non-trade barriers. You can pull off protectionism to the extent: that you don't need others; or so long as it's limited given your context; or depending on your strength and or ability to command concessions (eg lopsided deals); or depending on what you're willing to give up to protect something (eg give up cheaper prices to shield farmers, or ensure strategic national production of a thing). Ask France about its agriculture. Ask the US about its truck tariffs. Ask Germany about its car tariffs (EU facade). Ask China about, well, everything. Ask Japan about, well, lots of things. Ask Brazil about its wild economic controls. Ask Mexico about its restrictions on the energy industry. Ask Russia about, well, everything. The list just keeps going. You can list on one hand the relevant economies with zero or near zero protectionism.
astebbin 8y ago
If this were true, surely it would be in China's best interest to cease its many protectionist trade policies immediately. On the contrary, protectionism seems to work well when other countries are willing to put up with it, either for access to your workforce or access to your markets.
- roenxi 8y ago
  You might want to check the 'work well' part of that. The average American has 4x times more than the average Chinese national, even after ppp adjustments. I couldn't quickly find figures for the median, which I'd refer to use. China's net migration is also negative. It seems highly reasonable that China would be doing better if they toned down their protectionist policies.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    On the other hand, China’s GDP PPP per capita has gone up by a factor of 5.294 between 2000 and 2016 (source: WolframAlpha), so even if it is being held back by protectionism, that doesn’t look like a major part of the story.
- makomk 8y ago
  I've noticed that this idea that trade tariffs hurt the country applying them is often brought up when the US applies tariffs, but doesn't seem to get so much play in the press when talking about China's tariffs. Instead, they're generally treated as some kind of ingenious Chinese masterstroke that only hurts the US, even when they're on key food supplies. It's like powerful folks have some ideological or commercial reason why they don't want the US to impose tariffs, and arguments are invoked or discarded as necessary to push for this.
- olalonde 8y ago
  Yes it would. It still has a long way to go but China had a massive economic boom after Deng Xiaoping largely liberalized the economy. Hong Kong and Taiwan are still far ahead of course.
philipps 8y ago
This is not correct (or at least strongly disputed) as Cambridge University economist Ha Joon Chang explains in his book “Kicking Away the Ladder”. In essence, there is historical evidence that development through protectionism (and appropriation) has worked out well for the UK and the US.
guessthejuice 8y ago
> protectionism just doesn't work well in the long term. If that were the case, the US, China, Japan, South Korea, Britain, France, etc wouldn't be major economic powers. Every major economic power today copied the US protectionist model of the 19th century to become rich. Every single one. The US was explicitly protectionist well into the 1900s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Since 1945, we became implicit protectionists while touting free trade. Without protectionism, japan and south korea wouldn't have toyota, sony, samsung, etc. Without protectionism, china wouldn't have baidu, tencent, etc. Without protectionism, our industries would be owned by britain and europe and we'd only be a raw materials supplier. "Washington and Hamilton believed that political independence was predicated upon economic independence. Increasing the domestic supply of manufactured goods, particularly war materials, was seen as an issue of national security. In his Reports, Hamilton argued that the competition from abroad and the “forces of habit” would mean that new industries that could soon become internationally competitive (“infant industries”) would not be started in the United States, unless the initial losses were guaranteed by government aid (Conkin, 1980). According to him, this aid could take the form of import duties or, in rare cases, prohibition of imports. He called for customs barriers to allow American industrial development and to help protect infant industries, including bounties (subsidies) derived in part from those tariffs. He also believed that duties on raw materials should be generally low (Dorfman & Tugwell, Early American Policy, 1960). Hamilton explained that despite an initial “increase of price” caused by regulations that control foreign competition, once a “domestic manufacture has attained to perfection… it invariably becomes cheaper”." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo... Washington, Hamilton and most of our founding fathers were protectionists because our industries were young and needed protection against more established industries of britain. > There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade, deregulation, and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth. When you have to lean on consensus it usually means they have no idea what they are talking about or are pushing political ideology. We have historical proof that protectionism works. It's called the US, China, Britain, Japan, South Korea, etc. Always take evidence over consensus.

chii 8y ago

> There is a consensus among economists I dont know if such consensus is really justified (since these economists could be politically/ideologically biased). However, the wikipedia article did not mention the other side of the coin - namely, what protectionism does, and if it has any benefits (and drawbacks). Protectionism exists in the financial sectors (in which a majority of wealth is being created in the USA). I suspect that those that argue for free trade only argues for free trade for things they benefit from (but protectionism for things that might hurt themselves - even if free trade overall helps others).

antidesitter 8y ago
I dont know if such consensus is really justified (since these economists could be politically/ideologically biased). Do you have evidence for this, or are you just saying it because you don't like the conclusion?

h4b4n3r0 8y ago

There was a "consensus among economists" that US economy would tank under Trump, and that it can't grow at anything over 3%, and that "those jobs are not coming back". To quote Paul Krugman, the perennial darling of progressive intelligentsia: "No, you could make me total dictator to do everything I think would work and it still wouldn’t get you up more than a few tenths." There's a reason why economics is not considered a real science: economists have a hard time explaining the past, let alone predicting the future. Their "consensus" is not usually worth the paper it's printed on.

pastage 8y ago
Was there really a consensus or did you just read some new article stating that, even stating that Zimbabwes economy would thank under Mugabe was not something economist had found consensus for.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> There was a "consensus among economists" that US economy would tank under Trump, No, there wasn't. At most, there was concensus that certain policies he proposed would have adverse impact, but not all of those policies were implemented, and policies rarely have their full impact within a 1-2 year period. > and that it can't grow at anything over 3%, No, there wasn't. > and that "those jobs are not coming back" To the extent that there has ever even a widespread belief among economists, much less a consensus on that, it was (and is) on the long-term trend in certain sectors, not about the absence of positive short-term fluctuations. > Paul Krugman, the perennial darling of progressive intelligentsia Krugman isn't a progressive or particularly a favorite of progressives. The darlings of the progressive intelligentsia don't generally have gigs in the corporate media.
- h4b4n3r0 8y ago
  Here's an article for you from May 2017 that summarizes the views of the economic "science" establishment at the time: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-3percent-20170519-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-3percent-20170.... It aged so poorly it's pretty hilarious to read now. I'll leave the rest of your missive without comment.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> There was a "consensus among economists" that US economy would tank under Trump Not among any economists I talk to or read. (Which is the bulk of the mainstream.) The consensus was “tax cuts are real, tariffs are bluster.” Hence the stock market rally. The moment the second part was proved untrue, the rally faltered (but has not stalled).
dang 8y ago
Please stop doing political and ideological flamewar on Hacker News.

adventured 8y ago

Protectionism works just fine long-term. Almost every country on earth uses various degrees of protectionism, and all large economies do. They use combinations of tariffs and non-trade barriers. You can pull off protectionism to the extent: that you don't need others; or so long as it's limited given your context; or depending on your strength and or ability to command concessions (eg lopsided deals); or depending on what you're willing to give up to protect something (eg give up cheaper prices to shield farmers, or ensure strategic national production of a thing). Ask France about its agriculture. Ask the US about its truck tariffs. Ask Germany about its car tariffs (EU facade). Ask China about, well, everything. Ask Japan about, well, lots of things. Ask Brazil about its wild economic controls. Ask Mexico about its restrictions on the energy industry. Ask Russia about, well, everything. The list just keeps going. You can list on one hand the relevant economies with zero or near zero protectionism.

astebbin 8y ago

If this were true, surely it would be in China's best interest to cease its many protectionist trade policies immediately. On the contrary, protectionism seems to work well when other countries are willing to put up with it, either for access to your workforce or access to your markets.

roenxi 8y ago
You might want to check the 'work well' part of that. The average American has 4x times more than the average Chinese national, even after ppp adjustments. I couldn't quickly find figures for the median, which I'd refer to use. China's net migration is also negative. It seems highly reasonable that China would be doing better if they toned down their protectionist policies.
- ben_w 8y ago
  On the other hand, China’s GDP PPP per capita has gone up by a factor of 5.294 between 2000 and 2016 (source: WolframAlpha), so even if it is being held back by protectionism, that doesn’t look like a major part of the story.
makomk 8y ago
I've noticed that this idea that trade tariffs hurt the country applying them is often brought up when the US applies tariffs, but doesn't seem to get so much play in the press when talking about China's tariffs. Instead, they're generally treated as some kind of ingenious Chinese masterstroke that only hurts the US, even when they're on key food supplies. It's like powerful folks have some ideological or commercial reason why they don't want the US to impose tariffs, and arguments are invoked or discarded as necessary to push for this.
olalonde 8y ago
Yes it would. It still has a long way to go but China had a massive economic boom after Deng Xiaoping largely liberalized the economy. Hong Kong and Taiwan are still far ahead of course.

philipps 8y ago

This is not correct (or at least strongly disputed) as Cambridge University economist Ha Joon Chang explains in his book “Kicking Away the Ladder”. In essence, there is historical evidence that development through protectionism (and appropriation) has worked out well for the UK and the US.

guessthejuice 8y ago

> protectionism just doesn't work well in the long term. If that were the case, the US, China, Japan, South Korea, Britain, France, etc wouldn't be major economic powers. Every major economic power today copied the US protectionist model of the 19th century to become rich. Every single one. The US was explicitly protectionist well into the 1900s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Since 1945, we became implicit protectionists while touting free trade. Without protectionism, japan and south korea wouldn't have toyota, sony, samsung, etc. Without protectionism, china wouldn't have baidu, tencent, etc. Without protectionism, our industries would be owned by britain and europe and we'd only be a raw materials supplier. "Washington and Hamilton believed that political independence was predicated upon economic independence. Increasing the domestic supply of manufactured goods, particularly war materials, was seen as an issue of national security. In his Reports, Hamilton argued that the competition from abroad and the “forces of habit” would mean that new industries that could soon become internationally competitive (“infant industries”) would not be started in the United States, unless the initial losses were guaranteed by government aid (Conkin, 1980). According to him, this aid could take the form of import duties or, in rare cases, prohibition of imports. He called for customs barriers to allow American industrial development and to help protect infant industries, including bounties (subsidies) derived in part from those tariffs. He also believed that duties on raw materials should be generally low (Dorfman & Tugwell, Early American Policy, 1960). Hamilton explained that despite an initial “increase of price” caused by regulations that control foreign competition, once a “domestic manufacture has attained to perfection… it invariably becomes cheaper”." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo... Washington, Hamilton and most of our founding fathers were protectionists because our industries were young and needed protection against more established industries of britain. > There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade, deregulation, and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth. When you have to lean on consensus it usually means they have no idea what they are talking about or are pushing political ideology. We have historical proof that protectionism works. It's called the US, China, Britain, Japan, South Korea, etc. Always take evidence over consensus.