Protectionism - why not?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

.. but you were probably amonst those that advocated the minimum wage. Hypocrite perhaps ?

Even the Tories advocate the minimum wage now after having opposed it - like the hypocrites they are. That has knack all to do with my point which was that it's a mad system which makes it "cheaper" to send stuff halfway round the world.

[MrMark]

Thinking aloud - it's going to be inevitable that protection duties are brought back in (unless you want total unrest). The Government finances just won't be able to cope with ever increasing numbers of unemployed (and the associated loss in tax revenues).

[PM-Junkie]

Thinking aloud - it's going to be inevitable that protection duties are brought back in (unless you want total unrest). The Government finances just won't be able to cope with ever increasing numbers of unemployed (and the associated loss in tax revenues).

You still don't get it, do you? Protectionism causes more unemployment, so you'd have to be unbelievably stupid to bring in protectionist measures to prevent unempl....

Oh, I see your point

[MrMark]

You still don't get it, do you? Protectionism causes more unemployment, so you'd have to be unbelievably stupid to bring in protectionist measures to prevent unempl....

Oh, I see your point

You always know when PM-Junkie loses the argument (does he ever win?) when he resorts to personal abuse instead of trying to prove his point. How come Japan was successful for many years, yet had strong protectionist policies ? (they didn't just put a bit of duty on manufactured imports, they made it nearly impossible legally to own a British car in Japan. Crazy really - who'd want to ?)

AS for simply stating "Protectionism causes more unemployment" (without any proof), we can simply say "Lack of Protectionism causes more unemployment" (see current economic position of UK). Those people working in the prawn processing plant in Scotland would still have jobs if import duties were in place.

[PM-Junkie]

You always know when PM-Junkie loses the argument (does he ever win?) when he resorts to personal abuse instead of trying to prove his point. How come Japan was successful for many years, yet had strong protectionist policies ? (they didn't just put a bit of duty on manufactured imports, they made it nearly impossible legally to own a British car in Japan. Crazy really - who'd want to ?)

AS for simply stating "Protectionism causes more unemployment" (without any proof), we can simply say "Lack of Protectionism causes more unemployment" (see current economic position of UK). Those people working in the prawn processing plant in Scotland would still have jobs if import duties were in place.

Do try to read the whole thread. I gave a SPECIFIC example, and cited my sources, of where recent protectionist measures in one industry caused increased unemployment in another. Japan is a completely different subject - their economic success over the 80's and early 90's had very little to do with protectionism - but I won't try to explain it to you because I doubt you would understand if you didn't understand my earlier post.

I wasn't aware it was an argument...thanks for letting me know. Just about everyone who has even the smallest clue about economics knows protectionism causes more problems than it solves. Since citing a recent example, and sources, doesn't constitute "proof" in your book you might like to read up on the subject and come back when you know what you're talking about.

[centurian]

30% steel tariffs were imposed by the US in an attempt to save jobs in the steel industry. However within 12 months, American companies that buy steel were jumping up and down because they were suffering from higher costs. Carmakers in particular were really peed off at the tariffs, because they came at a time of crisis for the industry when it could ill afford to pay extra for homemade steel. It's just one of the reasons they are in so much trouble now.

Yes, there were many reasons why US carmakers are struggling, but increased materials costs was certainly one of them.

The tariffs imposed by Bush saved about 5,000 jobs in the very short and cost about 20,000+ jobs in the medium to long term. Oh, and those 5,000 jobs that were 'saved' probably went anyway in the medium term when the tarrifs were removed because the US steel industry did bugger all to reform because they were hiding behind the tariffs.

The trouble is that the benefits of tariffs are visible. The costs are not so evident, hence why there is so much pressure to use them.


I don't like offshoring anymore than the next person, but if we made everything in the UK, the cost of everything would go up so much and the rampant inflation would make Robert Mugage's eye's water.

The main reason we are so 'rich' is because of globalisation. Even the lifetime chavs on benefits are 'rich' - compared to standard life 50-100 years ago.

[Cyberman]

Even the Tories advocate the minimum wage now after having opposed it - like the hypocrites they are. That has knack all to do with my point which was that it's a mad system which makes it "cheaper" to send stuff halfway round the world.

Cobblers. Some might, but only a small minority. It has done an immense amount of damage, especially now at a time of recession. In any case many workers are still paid less than the minimum wage by virtue of being 'self-employed'. Thus, these people, mainly immigrant workers, have been putting indigenous folk out of work. It's been a disaster !!

[Cyberman]

Import duties would have prevented this. You see - Protecting our industry keeps prawn processors here in work AND protects the planet!

No it doesn't !! It puts up the price of prawns in shops to a level where people will buy them far less, thus safeguarding few jobs.

[centurian]

No it doesn't !! It puts up the price of prawns in shops to a level where people will buy them far less, thus safeguarding few jobs.

And those that do buy then, will in turn put up their prices.

Now if this is done for a few items, the economy can absorb it. Do it across the economy and the result is rampant inflation and everyone is worse off.

[PM-Junkie]

And those that do buy then, will in turn put up their prices.

Now if this is done for a few items, the economy can absorb it. Do it across the economy and the result is rampant inflation and everyone is worse off.

Oh bugger - it looks like cyberdork agrees with me...therefore I am clearly completely wrong.

My apologies MrMark, I am clearly wrong. Now I'll just have to figure out how