I find this to be one of the biggest lacunas in their logic when they rail against globalisation or free-trade. I have never understood this argument because there are so many flaws to begin with, where did these theories about ant-freed trade policies originate from? Almost every single one of my Professors this system is clearly anti free-trade and they say that it destroys developing economies or developed ones.
Basically, what I am asking is, where did this garbage they constantly spew come from?
Owners of the factors of production exploit workers and add no value. They oppose all trade. Jingoist stupidity just makes it easier to sway dolts in the case of international trade.
I hope you are not talking about economics professors.
LvMIenthusiast: Almost every single one of my Professors this system is clearly anti free-trade and they say that it destroys developing economies or developed ones.
Almost every single one of my Professors this system is clearly anti free-trade and they say that it destroys developing economies or developed ones.
After which they will make a turn to claim the Articles of Confederation were flawed because they enabled the states to erect barriers to interstate trade.
There are a number of arguments.
The first (and oldest) usually stems from the political desire to protect a young national industry from foreign competition which is seen as "too strong". A good example is Japan's policy in the '70s to protect her own computer industry from US competition.
The second stems from the desire to "level the play field". This is usually done when a new player appears in the field with good comparable (or better) to domestic ones but a more aggressive pricing policy. Think Italy's policy in the '70s and '80s to protect her own motorcycle industry from Japanese competition.
The third stems from the desire to keep hard cash inside the national borders. This has been done a number of times in the past, most notably by Napoleon in his struggle with Britain. Under a fiat money system this argument has been considerably weakened.
The fourth (and more often than not the most common but least spoken about) is the result of lobbying from industries which, for a reason or another, simply cannot compete with foreign companies or the desire to get back at another country for their own tariffs or, again, to favor an exporter over another. Here the EU agricultural policies are a very good example.
I've heard it from both my Political Science Professor and my economics professor. Quite remarkably ignorant actually, the more I look back at their reasoning.