Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Hence the quotas part of protectionism..
Try to keep up
What's your stance on protectionism?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Try to keep up
MediaBud
Member
I don't subscribe to political parties, nor do I even occasionally watch Fox News. I have degrees in journalism and philosophy, and I've benefitted from experiencing and reflecting on life in various countries. My ideas are my own, and I gladly open them to debate, as a capable skeptic and critical thinker. But if you're going to resort to employing senseless labels and generalizations, and egotistical reasoning wrapped in hyperbole, like Fox News, then there's no discussion to be had here... only everyone listening to your world view.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I am against quota's because it is just another avenue for political donations to create manipulations of the market which would be the equivalent of our 6000 page tax code. It would also encourage shady foreign donations.
Tariff's are something I am still going back and forth on. In a perfect world the USA should not be in the business of global police. If we got back to leading by example and not by force of arms then economics would be one of the few sticks left. However, putting tariffs on goods hurts the producers of the goods, not the governments so I am not sure if the ends justify the means.
Tariff's are something I am still going back and forth on. In a perfect world the USA should not be in the business of global police. If we got back to leading by example and not by force of arms then economics would be one of the few sticks left. However, putting tariffs on goods hurts the producers of the goods, not the governments so I am not sure if the ends justify the means.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Then I eagerly await an original opinion.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How do quotas incentivise political donations?
It only hurts the producers of goods that would ship labor overseas to reduce costs. If we make it cheaper to create goods in America than it would be to export the labor to foreign countries, we promote domestic competition, that competition then vies for lower prices to keep American customers. So while the price of foreign goods that were imported go up, domestic prices go down, American jobs are saved and middle class wages are restored
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Middle class wages are restored at a cost of higher imported goods. Again, it is like raising the minimum wage, it increases the cost of goods and services.
Quota's would be a legislative issue and the house and senate would be forever passing changes and modifications to the quota's and most of it would be driven by lobbiests donanting money to one cause or another. We have a 6000 page tax code because lobbiests get congress and the senate to insert loopholes and new rules that favor them. Why would the quota's be any different?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Carrying this too far has its own set of consequences, I do want to point that out.
However, tariffs to protect a worker's decent living wage, health care, pension, etc, is reasonable and since the whole point is to erase the advantages of racing to the bottom, it will instead create a new incentive; that of nations who are being targeted to improve the situation for THEIR workers, such as providing for health care, pensions, a living wage, etc, etc...
Race to the TOP, anyone?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I just thought of something. Minimum wage standards are a form of protectionism. They protect the labor market. The labor market of those countries that don't set minimum wage standards.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I think the boom after WWII was the result of our competition in the rest of world being devastated by literally being blown to bits. not by higher taxes.I'm not sure what is socialist about protectionism. It simply requires American corporations to compete domestically instead of with the lower labor costs of places like Asia and Africa - a race to the bottom if you will. If an American employer can pay $.50 to make his product in China, what incentive does he have to pay an American worker American wages? If we allow foreign manufacturing to save the corporation money on labor costs, that policy should ensure at least some of those savings come back to America. It should also be noted that foreign factories have much less regulation when it comes to things like the environment, so production in foreign countries presents a greater risk to people.
I simply don't believe that less regulation is the answer to a more efficient economy, history shows when corporations are given free reign to do what they want, they always choose the most cost efficient policy, even at the expense of American citizens. Indeed, that's the point of any business and they have financial obligations to their shareholders and investors. That's why we need these regulations in place.
As far as eliminating the corporate tax code, if you look at the period between 1950-1970, corporate taxes were at an all time high and so were manufacturing jobs in America because of a protectionist economic policy that required businesses to compete against each other instead of internationally. The result was a strong and robust middle class who could afford the goods and services necessary to strengthen the economy:
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Protectionism never results in lower prices. Quotas set by government are objects businesses wish to influence, thereby incentivizing political donations,
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the postwar economic boom, the long boom, and the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century which occurred, following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s. It ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession. Narrowly defined, the period spanned from 1945 to 1952, with overall growth lasting well until 1971, though there are some debates on dating the period, and booms in individual countries differed, some starting as early as 1945, and overlapping the rise of the East Asian economies into the 1980s or 1990s.
During this time there was high worldwide economic growth; Western European and East Asian countries in particular experienced unusually high and sustained growth, together with full employment. Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as Greece (Greek economic miracle), West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle), and Italy (Italian economic miracle)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion
You are on the wrong forum to have real discussions in the politics section. You would think a MJ forum would have some laidback, free-thinkers, but instead you have the most hateful, childish, spiteful people you would ever come across.
Last edited:
Red1966
Well-Known Member
High growth from a decimated economy is still miles behind one not decimated to begin with.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
MediaBud
Member
I did think that
But it is nice to see left, right and centrist perspectives here. Personally, at this point in my life, I find myself on the left side of Libertarianism, where my biggest concerns are public education, foreign policy and domestic policy.
The hardest thing about political discourse is when folks treat politics like religion. In other words, they let their concepts get grounded in an unquestionable faith. They take a platform and all its prophets to heart. And it's easy to get sidetracked by crafty labels, like "protectionism" -- who exactly gets protected, and how do you know?
I want our country to survive another century as global leader, and my life experiences have shown me that more government meddling isn't the way to do it. Just look at who we got today, in 2015, as front runners for our great nation's top executive office: a former diplomat who's either criminally negligent or shamelessly against accountability, and an ego rich billionaire who's either dishonestly pulling strings in an epic personal power grab or honestly incapable of empathy and selflessness.
I often see our bipartisan system as a silly sideshow, but it's in a dangerous self protection mode. Since our current structures of government are clearly bought snd sold, we must stop allowing our government officials to keep legislating moralities and freedoms, or we'll continue down this ironic path of spiritual and fiscal bankruptcy.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
0 government involvement isn't the left side of libertarianism..
MediaBud
Member
And your false dichotomies aren't a valid exercise in logic. There exists something between zero and infinity.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What role do you believe government should play in order to ensure American workers receive competitive wages and don't compete against international labor?