3 ms·

It depends on what you define as a "market". To nationalistic free marketeers, they want the market unimpeded within their boundaries; but "unfair" external in

It depends on what you define as a "market". To nationalistic free marketeers, they want the market unimpeded within their boundaries; but "unfair" external influence limited/removed. It's a perfectly compatible mindset.

rsynnott 3y ago
This only really works (for some value of 'works') if you go for external autarky, internal free market. Otherwise, you very much have the government picking winners and losers; banning or heavily tariffing the import of foreign steel, say, will be great for your steel industry, but probably pretty dire for other heavy industry, which consumes steel. Even the autarky option (or somewhat less extreme options like only applying protectionism to end products, rather than raw materials and intermediate products) is only free market if you kind of decide that _end consumers_ are not part of the free market. The car industry in particular has produced many examples of how this goes; look at the East German and Soviet car manufacturing industries, or to some extent the British one prior to European accession. Pumping out shoddy overpriced products which only had a market because people were forced to buy them, and which were utterly unable to compete once imports were finally practical.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  I didn't say it was a good idea, I was explaining the mentality behind it. It's an outset from a group of people that want to be free from govt regulations but also protected from foreign competitors, who they can't directly influence. They don't care about consumers beyond them buying their product at the highest possible margins.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Well, sure, I suppose they can call that 'free market' if they want to, but it clearly isn't.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic, a republic, or of the people. People use inaccurate self-descriptions all the time, especially for political good will. If you want to insert quotes around the phrase in your head, go for it.

rsynnott 3y ago

This only really works (for some value of 'works') if you go for external autarky, internal free market. Otherwise, you very much have the government picking winners and losers; banning or heavily tariffing the import of foreign steel, say, will be great for your steel industry, but probably pretty dire for other heavy industry, which consumes steel. Even the autarky option (or somewhat less extreme options like only applying protectionism to end products, rather than raw materials and intermediate products) is only free market if you kind of decide that _end consumers_ are not part of the free market. The car industry in particular has produced many examples of how this goes; look at the East German and Soviet car manufacturing industries, or to some extent the British one prior to European accession. Pumping out shoddy overpriced products which only had a market because people were forced to buy them, and which were utterly unable to compete once imports were finally practical.

deaddodo 3y ago
I didn't say it was a good idea, I was explaining the mentality behind it. It's an outset from a group of people that want to be free from govt regulations but also protected from foreign competitors, who they can't directly influence. They don't care about consumers beyond them buying their product at the highest possible margins.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Well, sure, I suppose they can call that 'free market' if they want to, but it clearly isn't.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic, a republic, or of the people. People use inaccurate self-descriptions all the time, especially for political good will. If you want to insert quotes around the phrase in your head, go for it.