Tuesday, May 8, 2012
On Free-Trade and Protectionism
An economic policy that disproportionately helps A, while disproportionately harming B, doesn't help the economy. It helps A. This whole antiseptic notion that, if we simply put stiffer tariffs on certain countries in an effort to help certain industries, the entirety of the nation will somehow benefit from it is absurd. There are always, ALWAYS, unintended consequences............................................................................................And the fact of the matter is that we can certainly stimulate the economy without these measures. Reducing and simplifying the corporate income tax rate (right now we have companies like G.E. paying zero and other companies like U.P.S. paying a shit-load), continuing to explore and market domestic sources of energy (even as it stands now, a lot of new manufacturing jobs are being created here in at least some small measure due to the cheap natural gas that we have), reducing the amount of red-tape necessary to start a new business (according to Dallas Mavericks' owner, Mark Cuban, he probably wouldn't have been able to start his businesses in today's highly troubled environment), loosening up visa restrictions in an effort to boost the tourist industry (prior to 9/11, the U.S. garnered 17% of the world's tourism business and we're currently down to 11% - Mr. Obama, to his credit, is absolutely addressing this), etc. - all of these initiatives would greatly expand the economy, I'm thinking............................................................................................And, besides, if tariffs were in fact such a wonderful thing for the ENTIRE country, then why, pray tell, did we almost fight the frigging Civil War 30 years prematurely over them? And why in the hell aren't they allowed BETWEEN the 50 states? Certainly Connecticut should be able to protect its citizenry from those terrible and backward Mississippians, no?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"A" = plutocrats.
"B" = American workers.
Absurd = This post.
So Einstein, what's the attraction?
In Will's example, "A" are workers also.
Exactly, Les and dmarks.
Exactly wrong, that is.
Way to address the points of the post, wd. You claimed that everybody benefited from protectionism and I pointed out that we almost fought a frigging civil war in this country over them in 1832. I'm intellectually honest. I have said right from the get that there are clearly pros and cons to both positions and you've been nothing but a lackey.
For you to say that I've "been nothing but a lackey" is intellectually dishonest... same as when I pointed out that you misinterpreted Adam Smith, and you responded that you gave a "direct quote".
And I'm tired of post, after post, after post on the same topic. It's as if you think you can prove you're right via sheer volume.
I DID give a direct quote! And it was a famous direct quote. And so what if Adam Smith had some concerns. That is the normal position in life, to have concerns and skepticism (of which you apparently have ZERO on EVERY position). But even with those concerns and skepticisms, he still came down on the side of free-trade.............And this has zero to do with volume. You made an idiotic assertion that protectionism benefits everybody and I gave a devastating and historically accurate refutation of that. And it was clearly something that you didn't know (that President Jackson threatened the south with military action if they refused to collect the tariff). But instead of being a mature person and saying, "Gee, maybe this is a little more complicated than I originally thought", you try to deny your obvious dogmatic extremism. Unbefriggingleivable.
Post a Comment