Benefit scrounging parasites from Europe

[Robinho]

But following your logic, protectionism would have led to more expensive steel would it not? Since there was no foreign competition.

Not if local steel had a competitive advantage to the extent that other countries would not have been able to compete. This is the point, tariffs will either, increase the price of buying a product, or, have no effect because that local product has a competitive advantage anyway. So there is essentially no point in tariffs. You could argue that it helps to start local industries but if they do have a competitive advantage anyway, they shouldn't need the help, remember by "helping" them you hinder the consumers of the product so the economy takes a hit elsewhere.

Really? The US was bankrupt after that war? How could they afford the Marshall plan then?

Their debt was 120% of GDP at the end of the war. That can no way be spun as a prosperous position.

[sasguru]

So to summarise Robby's argument as I understand it:

"Even though US steel prices were not uncompetitive, the US govt. had bankrupted itself at the end of the 2nd World War by buying too much of it".

It's taken me a while but we got there at the end. phew.

[shaunbhoy]

Just when you think that all possible definitions of being thick have been exhausted, along comes someone like Robinho to push the envelope still further.

[sasguru]

Not if local steel had a competitive advantage to the extent that other countries would not have been able to compete. This is the point, tariffs will either, increase the price of buying a product, or, have no effect because that local product has a competitive advantage anyway. So there is essentially no point in tariffs. You could argue that it helps to start local industries but if they do have a competitive advantage anyway, they shouldn't need the help, remember by "helping" them you hinder the consumers of the product so the economy takes a hit elsewhere.Their debt was 120% of GDP at the end of the war. That can no way be spun as a prosperous position.

Great theoretical argument that doesn't square with the facts in the early years of the economy in US, Britain, S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan.
And for a contemporary example with exactly the same protectionist policies but a good growth rate, see India

Their debt was 120% of GDP at the end of the war. That can no way be spun as a prosperous position.

Silly argument. That figure is what happens at the end of a titanic stuggle.
What wa their debt 10-20 years later?

[Robinho]

Just when you think that all possible definitions of being thick have been exhausted, along comes someone like Robinho to push the envelope still further.

Again, if you think i am wrong about something, please highlight it and say what is wrong with it.

Failure to do so can only leave me to believe that you are the thick one.

[shaunbhoy]

Failure to do so can only leave me to believe that you are the thick one.

It is your "failure to believe" a theory that does more than anything to promote its plausibility.
Keep digging jellyhead.

[DodgyAgent]

I have news for you. Britain didn't win any of the two world wars.
HTH

Yes we did

[sasguru]

Just when you think that all possible definitions of being thick have been exhausted, along comes someone like Robinho to push the envelope still further.

I have to admit the lack of logic combined with what seems to be a complete lack of historical knowledge is quite spectacular.

[sasguru]

Again, if you think i am wrong about something, please highlight it and say what is wrong with it.

.

That has been done adequately on this thread.

[Robinho]

Great theoretical argument that doesn't square with the facts in the early years of the economy in US, Britain, S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan.
And for a contemporary example with exactly the same protectionist policies but a good growth rate, see India

There are no facts here, just a few vague statements. I have already debunked your US "fact", i have already explained the futility of me debunking the rest to you because you will simply ignore it and throw a few more vague "facts" at me.

Silly argument. That figure is what happens at the end of a titanic stuggle.
What wa their debt 10-20 years later?

You were the one that suggested the consumers of steel weren't bankrupt after WWII. I am just pointing out to you that the US was the main consumer, and they weren't in a strong financial position after the war, thus the example is stupid.