6 ms·

Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. You have a short term benefit of protecting a handful of jobs in e

by rat87 2y ago

Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. You have a short term benefit of protecting a handful of jobs in exchange for vastly more expensive goods for everyone as well as more expensive inputs to your other products undercutting other local industries. Protectionism is popular because the benifits for the few are visible while the downsides are diffuse but add up. And in the end your business ends up going out of business anyway like the Soviet factories

maeil 2y ago
> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. I keep seeing these statements on here and they're utterly misleading. Protectionism is a spectrum. It is practiced by every single country. It's a very bold assumption to make that if every country would completely eliminate everything resembling it, this would benefit everyone. The opposite is very likely. There are numerous cases of protectionist policies where the country instituting them very clearly benefited from them, even in the long run. I have spent more than a decade in two countries, each having been on a different part of the protectionist spectrum since many decades ago. It is clear as day that the more protectionist one has, throughout, continuing to this day, seen very large benefits from this policy, larger than the benefits from the less protectionist country. We really need to stop propagating this myth among the educated in the West, it's just as harmful as "trickle-down economics" used to be before it became common knowledge that it's a fairy tale.
- kriops 2y ago
  A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. This is neither complicated nor controversial.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business and wreck the country. >It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. There's a huge misunderstanding in here somewhere. Most people don't think of their own welfare in terms of a negative outcome for anyone else. It's not necessarily a zero sum game. People can coexist and duplicate effort, and that sometimes makes sense. An individual or nation should strive for some reasonable level of self-sufficiency, because you can't always rely on other people to treat you well or take care of you.
    - kriops 2y ago
      To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the harm they would inflict. Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        >Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.
typ 2y ago
It depends. We can say that China’s industrial policies are a kind of protectionism as well in that they are willing to pay for extra cost for domestic “national red supply chain independence” rather than relying on the “comparatively advantageous” western vendors. And they did get excellent results. Note that industrial independence is exactly the opposite of free trade and that has been a long sought national goal by China. Regarding tariffs on China exports, the relatively fortunate position for the US is that the biggest components in consumer inflation index such as food, housing and energy are all either largely domestic produced or not dominated by China, which gives more room for the US to react. But the tariff could still harm the gross margin of the international enterprises and even SMBs, who are facing the immediate pressure of adjustment during the trade war.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  China has a high amount of protectionism. You can't sell in China without approval, and no foreign-controlled business is granted access. You have to set up a minimum 51% Chinese-owned subsidiary and possibly jump through other hoops to get access. This along with all the outsourcing has been used to steal IP and put foreign competitors out of business.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    Many of the claims you're making here are outdated, or just outright false. For example, the 51% requirement does not apply in most industries any more. It was a transitional measure as China opened up its economy to foreign investment, to prevent foreign companies from instantly taking over or outcompeting every Chinese company. But that measure has been rolled back over the years, and now only applies in particular industries. Tesla 100% owns its operations in China, as do more and more foreign companies. Many people in the US and Europe are operating with a mental picture of China that is decades out of date, or which is even just wrong.
    - 2y ago
rainsford 2y ago
> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. That is a good argument from a purely economic perspective, but the ability of a country to manufacture things on their own is a long-term benefit to the country from a security and sovereignty perspective. It's hard to prevail in a war if a potential enemy is making all your stuff for you. China understands this very well, which is why they spend an enormous amount of effort and resources building up domestic alternatives to manufactured products they still rely on non-Chinese sources for. Comac may or may not become globally competitive with Boeing or Airbus, but that's not really the point of the venture. China wants domestic aircraft expertise and capacity because it's critical to have and they don't want to be reliant on the US or Europe for it.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Profiting from a war with China is a total fantasy, it would be the end of both countries, even if we had as little trade with them as with the Soviet Union. The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Another cold war is possible, and someone could prevail eventually. >The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. That is not true in general. We have laws specifically to promote competition. I'm not aware of anything like that in China, although I haven't looked. I can tell you that it's common knowledge in China that doing certain kinds of business requires a bribe or connections. >They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. First, the Chinese government owns or has a stake in many companies there. I think you're even required to have certain CCP officials inside your company if it's big enough. Second, China does have patents and IP laws. They also have pervasive state surveillance, so your ideas can be stolen by the government. I often wonder if WE have that too, but at least total privacy is legal here. Americans can stop the state from spying on them in most cases, at least as far as we know. >The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. I think you're mistaken about this too, because many party members are rich and involved in business. They CAN determine policies. There was a huge crash in the Chinese stock market a couple of years ago as one party faction fought with another one. That was totally anti-competitive, yet it happened, and Western investors got screwed. I heard it was the result of a fight between Hu Jintao (the previous president of China) and Xi Jinping. I think the campaign against Hu was touted as a way to fight corruption. By the way, Mr. Hu has only been seen in public like once since he was dragged out of a national party meeting in 2022. >Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors. Germany is currently stagnating because of the toll the Ukraine war is taking on them, along with other commitments they've made such as shutting down all their nuclear power plants. They too have high labor costs and so on, like the rest of the West, but they were doing relatively well until recently.
sangnoir 2y ago
> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. You have a short term benefit of protecting a handful of jobs in exchange for vastly more expensive goods for everyone as well as more expensive inputs to your other products undercutting other local industries Expensive goods only result from half-assed protectionism. When governments go the whole nine yards, such as with China's PV and EV industries, or the US with agricultural subsidies, it results in very cheap products and inputs to other products. Corn syrup is an ingredient to a lot of American food items because it's a cheap sweetener due to all the subsidies as the government decided, many decades ago, that American farmers should be shielded from competition. Some decisions make sense in the realm of national strategy and geopolitics, and not pure economics. The US would be very different if it had started to import the bulk of it's corn from Ukraine in the late 1990s
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >When governments go the whole nine yards, such as with China's PV and EV industries, or the US with agricultural subsidies, it results in very cheap products and inputs to other products. We have subsidies for solar and other stuff but the competition is absurdly stiff. What the US government actually needs to do is limit imports. If you want to subsidize that stuff, the money can come from tariffs. >The US would be very different if it had started to import the bulk of it's corn from Ukraine in the late 1990s Yes, it would be worse. Food is very important strategically and economically, and subject to occasional disruptions. You don't want to have people starve because of one or more regions has a low yield. There is zero benefit to letting our land go fallow to save the meager cost of government agriculture programs to help farmers survive bad years. We don't import corn because we grow all we need. It is native to North America after all.

by rat87 2y ago

maeil 2y ago

> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. I keep seeing these statements on here and they're utterly misleading. Protectionism is a spectrum. It is practiced by every single country. It's a very bold assumption to make that if every country would completely eliminate everything resembling it, this would benefit everyone. The opposite is very likely. There are numerous cases of protectionist policies where the country instituting them very clearly benefited from them, even in the long run. I have spent more than a decade in two countries, each having been on a different part of the protectionist spectrum since many decades ago. It is clear as day that the more protectionist one has, throughout, continuing to this day, seen very large benefits from this policy, larger than the benefits from the less protectionist country. We really need to stop propagating this myth among the educated in the West, it's just as harmful as "trickle-down economics" used to be before it became common knowledge that it's a fairy tale.

kriops 2y ago
A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. This is neither complicated nor controversial.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business and wreck the country. >It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. There's a huge misunderstanding in here somewhere. Most people don't think of their own welfare in terms of a negative outcome for anyone else. It's not necessarily a zero sum game. People can coexist and duplicate effort, and that sometimes makes sense. An individual or nation should strive for some reasonable level of self-sufficiency, because you can't always rely on other people to treat you well or take care of you.
  - kriops 2y ago
    To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the harm they would inflict. Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.

typ 2y ago

It depends. We can say that China’s industrial policies are a kind of protectionism as well in that they are willing to pay for extra cost for domestic “national red supply chain independence” rather than relying on the “comparatively advantageous” western vendors. And they did get excellent results. Note that industrial independence is exactly the opposite of free trade and that has been a long sought national goal by China. Regarding tariffs on China exports, the relatively fortunate position for the US is that the biggest components in consumer inflation index such as food, housing and energy are all either largely domestic produced or not dominated by China, which gives more room for the US to react. But the tariff could still harm the gross margin of the international enterprises and even SMBs, who are facing the immediate pressure of adjustment during the trade war.

wakawaka28 2y ago
China has a high amount of protectionism. You can't sell in China without approval, and no foreign-controlled business is granted access. You have to set up a minimum 51% Chinese-owned subsidiary and possibly jump through other hoops to get access. This along with all the outsourcing has been used to steal IP and put foreign competitors out of business.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  Many of the claims you're making here are outdated, or just outright false. For example, the 51% requirement does not apply in most industries any more. It was a transitional measure as China opened up its economy to foreign investment, to prevent foreign companies from instantly taking over or outcompeting every Chinese company. But that measure has been rolled back over the years, and now only applies in particular industries. Tesla 100% owns its operations in China, as do more and more foreign companies. Many people in the US and Europe are operating with a mental picture of China that is decades out of date, or which is even just wrong.
  - 2y ago

rainsford 2y ago

> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. That is a good argument from a purely economic perspective, but the ability of a country to manufacture things on their own is a long-term benefit to the country from a security and sovereignty perspective. It's hard to prevail in a war if a potential enemy is making all your stuff for you. China understands this very well, which is why they spend an enormous amount of effort and resources building up domestic alternatives to manufactured products they still rely on non-Chinese sources for. Comac may or may not become globally competitive with Boeing or Airbus, but that's not really the point of the venture. China wants domestic aircraft expertise and capacity because it's critical to have and they don't want to be reliant on the US or Europe for it.

whatshisface 2y ago
It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Profiting from a war with China is a total fantasy, it would be the end of both countries, even if we had as little trade with them as with the Soviet Union. The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Another cold war is possible, and someone could prevail eventually. >The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. That is not true in general. We have laws specifically to promote competition. I'm not aware of anything like that in China, although I haven't looked. I can tell you that it's common knowledge in China that doing certain kinds of business requires a bribe or connections. >They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. First, the Chinese government owns or has a stake in many companies there. I think you're even required to have certain CCP officials inside your company if it's big enough. Second, China does have patents and IP laws. They also have pervasive state surveillance, so your ideas can be stolen by the government. I often wonder if WE have that too, but at least total privacy is legal here. Americans can stop the state from spying on them in most cases, at least as far as we know. >The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. I think you're mistaken about this too, because many party members are rich and involved in business. They CAN determine policies. There was a huge crash in the Chinese stock market a couple of years ago as one party faction fought with another one. That was totally anti-competitive, yet it happened, and Western investors got screwed. I heard it was the result of a fight between Hu Jintao (the previous president of China) and Xi Jinping. I think the campaign against Hu was touted as a way to fight corruption. By the way, Mr. Hu has only been seen in public like once since he was dragged out of a national party meeting in 2022. >Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors. Germany is currently stagnating because of the toll the Ukraine war is taking on them, along with other commitments they've made such as shutting down all their nuclear power plants. They too have high labor costs and so on, like the rest of the West, but they were doing relatively well until recently.

sangnoir 2y ago

> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. You have a short term benefit of protecting a handful of jobs in exchange for vastly more expensive goods for everyone as well as more expensive inputs to your other products undercutting other local industries Expensive goods only result from half-assed protectionism. When governments go the whole nine yards, such as with China's PV and EV industries, or the US with agricultural subsidies, it results in very cheap products and inputs to other products. Corn syrup is an ingredient to a lot of American food items because it's a cheap sweetener due to all the subsidies as the government decided, many decades ago, that American farmers should be shielded from competition. Some decisions make sense in the realm of national strategy and geopolitics, and not pure economics. The US would be very different if it had started to import the bulk of it's corn from Ukraine in the late 1990s

wakawaka28 2y ago
>When governments go the whole nine yards, such as with China's PV and EV industries, or the US with agricultural subsidies, it results in very cheap products and inputs to other products. We have subsidies for solar and other stuff but the competition is absurdly stiff. What the US government actually needs to do is limit imports. If you want to subsidize that stuff, the money can come from tariffs. >The US would be very different if it had started to import the bulk of it's corn from Ukraine in the late 1990s Yes, it would be worse. Food is very important strategically and economically, and subject to occasional disruptions. You don't want to have people starve because of one or more regions has a low yield. There is zero benefit to letting our land go fallow to save the meager cost of government agriculture programs to help farmers survive bad years. We don't import corn because we grow all we need. It is native to North America after all.