4 ms·

Protectionism hurts the ultimate consumer of the product. If domestic companies require patronage from the state in order to remain in business, they should not

• rayiner 2y ago
  Citation needed.
• kube-system 2y ago
  > Protectionism hurts the ultimate consumer of the product. In times of good economies, open borders, and peace, it might. But it also incurs significant risk if there are disruptions. > If domestic companies require patronage from the state in order to remain in business, they should not exist, no matter the conditions in some other jurisdiction. DJI and similar Chinese tech companies are benefiting from very significant protectionism, themselves. Should they not exist?
• glimshe 2y ago
  "Patronage from state" is a sensationalist way of putting us trying to avoid being overly dependent on a hostile dictatorship. Yes, the consumer will pay more but in this case it's worth it. It's like paying more for something because of insurance costs.
• cwyers 2y ago
  `Protectionism hurts the ultimate consumer of the product.` So do lots of other things, and you need to balance competing sources of harm against each other. Allowing foreign companies benefitting from protectionist policies drive domestic industries out of business leaves consumers vulnerable to several other harms. You can't just do everything in a vacuum without considering the context because it's the "right thing to do" and expect the best outcomes.
• rasz 2y ago
  Doesnt seem to hurt Chinese consumers much.