4 ms·

I’m SUPER interested how protectionist capitalism has helped the working class. Could you elaborate?

swebs 7y ago
Here's a great read on how offshoring labor has affected the US labor market. http://economics.mit.edu/files/7723 http://economics.mit.edu/files/7723
- jevgeni 7y ago
  That offshoring will lower wages is a pretty obvious thing. But that's not what I've asked. Where is it evident that protectionism would sustainably help and not reduce aggregate demand or in fact not lower employment? And how would one prevent even more entrenched oligopolies?
morningseagulls 7y ago
>I’m SUPER interested how protectionist capitalism has helped the working class. Australia is an example of a protectionist capitalist society: in fact, its first federal government was formed by a party called the Protectionist Party, with the support of the union-based Labor Party.[0] Unions are relatively strong there, compared to the rest of the world, and Australia's immigration policy is pretty tight, which protects workers there from foreign competition. Consequently, workers have some of the highest (minimum) wages in the world, and enjoy relatively excellent working conditions. The economy has also been doing well since the 1990s, despite the GFC and everything. The EU is probably another example: strong labour laws with stringent labour market tests and excellent working conditions, as well as stringent requirements on a wide range of commodities that has to be satisfied by imports. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Government
- jevgeni 7y ago
  Wait, but unions are not necessarily protectionist. Also the protectionist government you are referring to was active until 1903, yet the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing?
  - morningseagulls 7y ago
    >Wait, but unions are not necessarily protectionist. Please define what you mean by "protectionist". In what sense are unions not protectionist? Their sole function is to protect the labour market. I'd view unions in Australia as really protectionist: they've managed to secure very high minimum wages, as well as highly restrictive immigration policies that Trump praised to high heaven.[0] >Also the protectionist government you are referring to the cabinet which was active until 1903 Their immigration policy[1] lasted for decades, before being replaced by the current immigration policy. The Protectionist Party[2] hung around until 1909, when they merged into the Commonwealth Liberal Party. This party was a predecessor of the current Liberal Party: Protectionist + Anti-Socialist -> Commonwealth Liberal Commonwealth Liberal + National Labor -> Nationalist Nationalist + dissident Labor + Australian -> United Australian -> Liberal So there is still protectionism hanging around in both major political parties today. >the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing? It's spelled Labor, because modern spelling.[3] And Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996 (Hawke[4], then Keating[5]), so that productivity growth in the 1990s... probably Labor's fault? Lol. I think the proliferation of personal computers may have had more to do with it. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-support-for-australias-immigration-policy/11251800 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-s..., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/01/donald-trump-hails-australias-merit-based-immigration-system https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/01/donald-trump... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating
    - jevgeni 7y ago
      Protectionism in economic sense are measures that inhibit international trade. Tariffs, selective subsidies and too restrictive immigration policies are good examples. Maybe in Australia they use the word differently, but in Europe this is what is meant by “protectionism”. The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment. Also, I don’t understand. At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then?

Here's a great read on how offshoring labor has affected the US labor market. http://economics.mit.edu/files/7723 http://economics.mit.edu/files/7723

jevgeni 7y ago
That offshoring will lower wages is a pretty obvious thing. But that's not what I've asked. Where is it evident that protectionism would sustainably help and not reduce aggregate demand or in fact not lower employment? And how would one prevent even more entrenched oligopolies?

morningseagulls 7y ago

>I’m SUPER interested how protectionist capitalism has helped the working class. Australia is an example of a protectionist capitalist society: in fact, its first federal government was formed by a party called the Protectionist Party, with the support of the union-based Labor Party.[0] Unions are relatively strong there, compared to the rest of the world, and Australia's immigration policy is pretty tight, which protects workers there from foreign competition. Consequently, workers have some of the highest (minimum) wages in the world, and enjoy relatively excellent working conditions. The economy has also been doing well since the 1990s, despite the GFC and everything. The EU is probably another example: strong labour laws with stringent labour market tests and excellent working conditions, as well as stringent requirements on a wide range of commodities that has to be satisfied by imports. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Government

jevgeni 7y ago
Wait, but unions are not necessarily protectionist. Also the protectionist government you are referring to was active until 1903, yet the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing?
- morningseagulls 7y ago
  >Wait, but unions are not necessarily protectionist. Please define what you mean by "protectionist". In what sense are unions not protectionist? Their sole function is to protect the labour market. I'd view unions in Australia as really protectionist: they've managed to secure very high minimum wages, as well as highly restrictive immigration policies that Trump praised to high heaven.[0] >Also the protectionist government you are referring to the cabinet which was active until 1903 Their immigration policy[1] lasted for decades, before being replaced by the current immigration policy. The Protectionist Party[2] hung around until 1909, when they merged into the Commonwealth Liberal Party. This party was a predecessor of the current Liberal Party: Protectionist + Anti-Socialist -> Commonwealth Liberal Commonwealth Liberal + National Labor -> Nationalist Nationalist + dissident Labor + Australian -> United Australian -> Liberal So there is still protectionism hanging around in both major political parties today. >the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing? It's spelled Labor, because modern spelling.[3] And Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996 (Hawke[4], then Keating[5]), so that productivity growth in the 1990s... probably Labor's fault? Lol. I think the proliferation of personal computers may have had more to do with it. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-support-for-australias-immigration-policy/11251800 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-s..., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/01/donald-trump-hails-australias-merit-based-immigration-system https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/01/donald-trump... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating
  - jevgeni 7y ago
    Protectionism in economic sense are measures that inhibit international trade. Tariffs, selective subsidies and too restrictive immigration policies are good examples. Maybe in Australia they use the word differently, but in Europe this is what is meant by “protectionism”. The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment. Also, I don’t understand. At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then?