If protectionism worked... what would be the point of sanctions?
This one seems too simple to answer: if they are selling to us, they must be getting something valuable in return. If at some point we stop producing things they value, they'll stop selling us things, and we might respond by adjusting what we make so that we have something to exchange with other countries again. These changes occur gradually, so the signal needn't be huge (massive unemployment) before we respond.
When the government steps in, it penalizes individuals who want to buy things that other countries can make more cheaply than us (or that we can't make at all), and encourages inferior/more costly versions to be produced and sold here. That benefits the producers of the inferior versions here, but why would we want to do that? I thought the point was to improve things.
Still waiting for you to explain how everything would or even could be outsourced, Buzz Killington.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Samuel Smith: If protectionism worked... what would be the point of sanctions?
Malachi: Its for their own good ;-)
Its for their own good ;-)
Just saw this and I had to lol.
I didn't mean everything, that was my bad, what I mean is there will be a big loss of jobs because a lot of our industry will be outsourced and thus there will be nothing to do.
And as for sanctions, look at what the US is doing on Iran, restricting EXPORTS, not IMPORTS.
Autolykos: Still waiting for you to explain how everything would or even could be outsourced, Buzz Killington.
It could happen if people's preferences were such that they prefered hiring people that did not live in a particular location. It could happen if government taxed any employer ridiculous amounts.
However if that happened, in a free market, workers would simply change their location to the outsourced locations, as if job prospects look better in a region, people who want a job will emigrate there. Outsourcing can happen in a free market, and workers will change locations in a free market to compensate. Of course, if people are forced to stay where things were outsourced from, conditions would be horrible, but its not an argument for protectionism per se.
Schools are labour camps.
</thread>
Clayton -
I don't think many Americans will be happy to move to a Chinese sweatshop, in fact, who could even afford the plane ride?
</thread> Clayton -
What a bunch of liberal garbage, this is why most libertarians are a bunch of leftists, you're admitting that this policy is disastrous for the US but you're still pushing it because you're a globalist liberal.
And I am absolutely in favor of racial segregation and racial protectionism, I do hold the interests of blacks as secondary to the interests of my race.
But if anyone has an argument as to how the US benefits from free trade instead of some globalist NWO crap, go ahead, I'm listening.
Who admitted (and where) that free tree would be disastrous for the US? And I have not seen where you addressed my response. <waiting>
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
americans can setup american sweatshops
there is nothing liberal about saying the individual matters more than the nation or the race. well it is liberal in the classic sense, but it's not the sense that it argues for protectionism.
there is no usa, it's a fiction, there are individuals that live and breath, that matters more than some fiction.
im in favor of people volunteering to segragate, but not forcing people to segregate. why someone have a say in what others choose to do?
@Phil: I responded, the idea of Americans working in sweatshop conditions...that's the whole problem
Mises.org is some fiction, it's ultimately just a bunch of individuals using a computer code, businesses are fictions, they're just individuals, this is the case with libertarian feminism, it's why I'm starting to despise individualism, you destroy institutions essential to the order of individuals in the name of "individualism". The real individualists are those who realize that a collective is a collection of individuals and seek to preserve things to benefit individuals.
Because someone always has a say, where do you think the concept of property comes from? It's a violently enforced opinion, all order comes from opinions with guns, and while appeals to mythological concepts like natural rights and Lockeanism and other absurdities try to conceal this fact, you're still forcing people to conform to this standard because you think it's just. I'm reading Human Action and continue to be puzzled by how many so called Mises fans believe in natural rights when the man so clearly shouted to everyone that the only purpose of his economic policies was to benefit the whole society.
what size group do you think is best?
why a nation such as the usa as supposed to smaller groups such as blood relatives or so?
where does society start and stop?
why is someone 3000 miles east more part of a society than someone 1 foot north?
every decision to better the whole society will mean tempory discomfort for some parts of a society. for a society to grow as a whole it must shed cacoons holding back growth. society must use comparative advantage to sustain itself.
a group that waits for a paraplegic to walk will die off with the paraplegic. the group that makes or trades for a way to have the paraplegic move around and contribute in other ways will do better.
the group that has drunken uncle eddie build a shelter will likely not have as good of a shelter as the group that trades with bob the builder and joe the plumber.
@Buzz