5 ms·
Agreed, it's not just Maoism, it's the broader history of China's economic development. Also, if protectionism, which is notably bidirectional, isn't the root
by rbarooah 15y ago
Agreed, it's not just Maoism, it's the broader history of China's economic development.
Also, if protectionism, which is notably bidirectional, isn't the root cause of rural poverty in China, do we have any reason for believing that unilaterally abandoning it would alleviate the poverty?
- ktizo 15y agoOpium and cannon. There was a reason the sun didn't set on the British Empire. God doesn't trust the British in the dark.
- rbarooah 15y agoSo basically war.
- ktizo 15y agoI think that is one of the root causes, both internal and external. Also I think that europe was extraordinarily lucky in retaining its lead once it got it. [edit] and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy.
- rbarooah 15y agoand it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy. Why isn't protectionism just part of the terms that nations negotiate when they trade?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ktizo 15y agoSo is war.
- rbarooah 15y agoI'd suggest that war is different because with protectionism one side can choose not to trade if they don't like the terms, whereas one cannot simply choose not to participate in war.
- ktizo 15y agoWith British protectionism, you had no choice but to trade. Thats what the cannon were there for. And when China tried to ban British Opium, we were very annoyed indeed.
- rbarooah 15y agoI'd definitely agree that trade at gunpoint is on the same spectrum as war. I can see how you get from there to all protectionism being on that spectrum too. Short of eliminating national borders, I don't see how this would go away.
- ktizo 15y agoAll trade protectionism by heavily armed players who regularly use force is on that spectrum. It would be almost impossible for the US or the UK to engage in protectionist trade practices that are not backed by some kind of military threat. The idea that protectionism is a major factor in war has long been around; Frederic Bastiat - "When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will" (possibly not him, but commonly attributed) Carl von Clausewitz - "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" Henry Kissinger - "if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order." Francis Sayre - "The policy of excessive protectionism is like a habit-forming drug. Nations once indulging in it go on from excess to excess; and the appetite increases. But the end of unrestrained indulgence is disaster. Economic nationalism and protectionism spell disaster for the world as well as for the nation...Men will fight before they starve. Uneconomic trade barriers forge the thunderbolts of war." Sorry for the appeal to authority in using these quotes, but the simple fact is that even if you tried to create a protectionist policy that avoided associations with war wherever possible, the people who implemented it would still see it in military terms as a link between the two has been a fairly common consensus on most sides of the debate for a very long time.