History of Protectionism

Bumpp

American industry is shit so they need to rig the system

see for example the automobile.

Economic Centrism >>> Gommies, Ancaps and any other kind of shit. The US pretty much proves this. Also, when you're a global superpower, you have the prerogative to ask other cunts to have "free" economies while somewhat protecting yours.

>"free trade" friendly countries are always unabashed shitholes

But that's wrong?

Actually US industry is the most productive in the world

?

Which developed nation is truly free trade and non-protectionist?

Its just gamesmanship.

You want free trade when you're trying to export, protectionism when you're importing. You want to sell for the most profit and buy for the least cost.

Exactly

pretty much this

19th century England was free trade as fuck and lost all of their money

19th century America only said they supported free trade and got all the money

The government would tax exports if voters let it.

All that is happening is voters have a more difficult time understanding how protectionism hurts them.

Pic related

Also, the UK only began to have lower tariffs than France in the late 1800's. Before that the UK tariffs were really high

this is one of those "don't go extreme" deals

if you are too into protectionism your economy gets complacent and stagnates and everyone else tries to protect as well

be too into free-trade and other economies are built up on your expense

But the US grew the fastest in its history when it was extremely protectionist?

It was literally the most protectionist major nation from 1870-1945.

I'm not saying cause ---> effect

But there's nothing empirical about some golden mean in protextionism

If you're a major economic player, you want to be protectionist. Use your muscle to crush your smaller, weaker opposition. If you're tiny, you want free trade so your businesses can out-compete the big guys.

It's just like monopolies vs upstarts. The monopoly wants to use its greater market share and political leverage to bias competition. The upstart wants a fair competition because they know the monopoly will be bad at it.

Free trade in small undeveloped countries almost always means "primarization" of the the economy.

yeah but there was a reason it stopped being protectionist.

starts with a G

gJews?

By buying a pair of domestically manufactured shoes I'm keeping a fellow American employed.

But if I buy shittier shoes from China I'm "freeing up" the local's shoemaker's from making shoes and thus he can focus on other things. But what if the shoemaker has nothing else, or knows nothing else?

The economy goes from full employment equilibrium point to another full employment equilibrium point automatically. What are you, some kind of dirty keynesian?

Because most of ecomomical doctrines - traps for idiots. Normal countries with strong economics force open markets, with weak one - protect themselves. All other - for idiots.

Gooks?

>keynesian economics
>changing Great Depression America into 1950s America

other economic theorist are mad because they can't produce actual historical results quite like it.

Privatize the gains, socialize the losses

>But what if the shoemaker has nothing else, or knows nothing else?
That is literally NOT a question anyone in economics raises. What the fuck.

>US is the most protectionist state
Adam Smith is rolling in his grave :^(

>only knowing how to make shoes

It's not only a dream, it's my life.

It is

Wut

Right. Not everyone communicates to have arguments on here. I'm just saying protectionism is something LTV proponents argued across the board against, all the way up to Mill.

Nothing you can really do about it. It also pretty much pulls up the ladder of development with Agriculture.

Hong Kong? Singapore?

Protectionism? Some economists would argue it hurts productivity.

Von Mises and those who preach his message wouldn't, but his ideas are solely consistent with the idea of a monopoly on interest.

For small undeveloped countries it's basically like
stripping yourself, baring your asshole and inviting any body to fuck you. You'll get people alright taking up your offer but granted it's the type of people who are willing to solicit sex from a nude man flashing his tight asshole in public.

documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/322361469672160172/pdf/123510v20PUB0r00Box371943B00PUBLIC0.pdf

>But the US grew the fastest in its history when it was extremely protectionist?
No? The US experienced (and theoretically caused) the worst economic crisis in history at the peak of its protectionism.

I know I was just confirming what you said

Explain? You mean how we fuck over African agriculture?

But mises said that USA needed foreign capital to build their railroads in the beginning.

South American countries are very protectionist and they are shit. Chile is more liberal and has the second highest HDI.

[Citation needed]

>South American countries are very protectionist and they are shit.
But is that because of the protectionism or because they are culturally fucked?

>Chile is more liberal and has the second highest HDI.
It also has 30% of GDP in exported copper/nickel/gold.
Maybe the reality is that some types on "protectionist" policies are more effective in certain countries and time periods and levels of development than others?

Do you seriously not know the causes of the Depression and the reactions which just furthered the problem? Are you still in High School?

Market speculation. Had nothing to do with protectionism.

Just developing world agriculture.

Here take these seeds we designed in a laboratory that cause the people who eat the food to have birth defects.

Thank you globalization.

>and the reactions which just furthered the problem
>Had nothing to do with protectionism
You can't be serious. Are you seriously implying that the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, and the reactionary tarriffs, were not protectionism? Are you implying that they did not worsen the Depression? Because that's extremely counterfactual.

Paraguay is basically the equivalent of a tax free zone and it's one of the worst shitholes.
Protectionism done well is good, protectionism done badly is bad.

Market speculation was caused from the monopolised wealth caused by protectionism you fucking moron

>he posted an unfalsifiable hypothesis

I am not the man you were replying to, nor do I know too much about that act. -But- the initial cause was certainly not protectionist related.

>It also pretty much pulls up the ladder of development with Agriculture.
Yeah I know at least the EU used to be really shitty about it.
Protectionism our way for agriculture with african countries so Manuel and Pierre can keep their jobs on the farm.
That way their industry funded by subsidies can thrive.
They produce too much though, so to not spoil the goods they get dumped for low prices in african markets with little protectionism and wipe out the potential for their agriculture to grow.

>monopolized wealth
>implying protectionist policies create any sort of monopoly

From the transition of resources into the 20th century, I would like you to explain to me what exactly would be the explicitly beneficial effects of protectionist procedures through the twentieth century as the nation drifted away from the gold-exchange standard

Truly, the application of protectionist policies may harm one's stance in trade internationally because their productivity is not going to be spurred by increased sales or ventures for their capital to drift into locally.

Incredibly, it seems the only benefit to protectionist policies would be the retaining of gold in the assets of a central bank of a country, but many economists doubt the spurious claim that protectionist policies create some sort of monopoly on trade.

ACKCHUALLY, that's not (entirely) true and Keynesians would disagree with your statement. Keynesians say that the lack of monetary flow (the largest factor in causing the Depression to Keynesians) was partially caused by increased prices due to the tariffs imposed in the wake of WWI.

I think the problem is that in here people love government. Many people want smaller government but populists always take advantage of the situation to argue for more government. Populist bullshit to have state companies. Say that privatization is evil. We're so far left that everyone from your Democrats would be right wing in here.

Every time we try to be more liberal we get better but they find a way to demonize it. I think we need more capitalism.

It's unfalsifiable because its right.

It's something you don't want to touch because it is explicitly not tremendously statistically theoretical and touches on the philosophy of the whole factor of incessant technological 'improvements' in agriculture.

>It's unfalsifiable because its right

Sorry, I'm not a creationist.

>because its right
Then why do the vast majority of studies say otherwise? Why have the largest studies that say it is true been debunked?

It was entirely speculative. Listen to this man
youtube.com/watch?v=MEc7sE7psJA

>It was entirely speculative
That's counter to the historiography.

A few years later fisher abandoned mainstream economics and went on to create a debt deflation theory of the crisis that is actually pretty good.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation#Fisher.27s_formulation_.281933.29

Depends who you read.

Because those studies want money from MONSANTO

Okay, allow me to rephrase. It's counter to the COMMON historiography.

>the evidence of X isn't there because Y
>then why do you believe in X at all
>Y shill detected

Study bias comes in many forms.Corporations will certainly pay money to influence findings and even support realms of academia and industrial progress so it suits their interests. Do you doubt this? Why don't you post a study that refuted these claims then we'll talk.

All that shit started with the Truman Doktrims

Their plan was to stop interacting in eu, therefore eu would stop with fucking shit up in south america

Appereantly the soviets thought it would be cool to spread communism and truman brought up the idea of his containment politic.

This was pretty much the turning point for americas modern politics.

It's really not. A lack of sufficient market switches and overexpanded credit were what exacerbated the depression, really.

Anyone claiming protectionism is a retard.

>Why don't you post a study that refuted these claims

Because you just said that you don't believe studies.

Besides that, I don't come to Veeky Forums to change people's minds, I come here to find stupid faggots and make fun of them.

You are one such individual, and there is a carefully refined etiquette that must now be observed.

So you lose. Welcome to Veeky Forums.

As a non-american if America is protectionist my whole life is a lie.

It is, and it might matter foundationally, but really it just ends up hurting the technological progress of the companies that instills the protectionist policies in the long run.

>were what exacerbated the depression, really.
You keep doing the thing that's counter to the historiography. The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff and the reactionary tarriffs caused by it are commonly stated as worsening the depression to the point of non-recovery due to the fact it completely killed international trade and reduced any remaining capital flow to nothing.

The only retard is the person claiming that protectionism had nothing to do with the Depression, i.e. you.

>How come the USA always demands free trade when it is one of the most protectionist developed nations?

Hypocrisy.

I never disputed that either, but certainly the cause, as indicated, was not caused by protectionist policies. That is ridiculous.

It has dozens of import restrictions and duties as you well know.

Through systems of taxation you could also say the US has disguised export subsidies.

Number of protectionist laws does not necessarily correlate with severity of protectionism. A nation can have one single law barring all imports, for example. This graph is more of a consequence of the long and storied history of American involvement in global trade than anything else.

The Smoot tariff had practically nothing to do with the continuation of the great depression. This liberal claim has been disproven multiple times

Higher prices (inflation) were exactly what Keynes wanted in a depression

It is the most protectionist major developed nation

Especially pre 1945.

But besides that it's very economically liberal, right?

>The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff and the reactionary tarriffs caused by it are commonly stated as worsening the depression to the point of non-recovery
[Citation needed]

The tariffs only raised the rates from 38% to 45%.

>Number of protectionist laws does not necessarily correlate with severity of protectionism.

That wasn't what the claim made was solely based on. Actual studies that look at the severity show that the US is the most protectionist major economy.

About average in the OECD.

For example, 50% of profits in the US went to the top 100 companies last year.

Bump

Not if people like Thomas Piketty have their way with it. I was reading an article in The Guardian not too long ago, and he was prescribing all sorts of different subsidies on exportation. WHY.JPG

>Actual studies
Post them. Actual peer reviewed academic ones not bullshit from think tanks like Cato or Global Trade Alert.

I'm simply saying that the tariff of 1930 barely raised the rates.

Is Piketty french for "satan"?

Hmmmm I wonder

protectionism isnt isolationism