He's a Mercantilist just because unregulated free-trade destroyed the global economy...

This is the future:
youtube.com/watch?v=I3zeYV4oN2A

>Is it possible to argue this one just on its merits as an economic system and not get into how it affects human communities?

That's an excellent counterpoint user, honestly. Can OP explain the cost/benefit ratio of his preferred economic system? Maybe he can account for the community?

My point is that there are far more considerations that are involved in political life than merely the economic side of it. Yes, strictly speaking it can be cheaper to purchase cars elsewhere. It can also lead to negative externalities such as depressed wages. Reality is nowhere near as simple as robotically calculating the maximum return on purchase with no care for the present or the future.

It is well established and uncontroversial that free trade is beneficial to all parties, but most people are extremely ignorant of economics, so politicians can't resist the opportunity to promote destructive populist policies.

This has to be bait.

The problem with protectionism is you are supposed to go into it with a solid plan and not just as some knee-jerk 'protecting muh jobs!' maymay.

What you get when you protect and subsidize workers just to keep them theire jobs, you have essentially created self-interested guilds that control sections of the economy that guide further economic policy of the country. Mercantilism is not about protecting domestic workers, its about making sure money flows into the country, and at the moment Free trade is better at doing that.

What people really are wanting when they are arguing for mercantilism, it seems to me, is government running things like a command economy, as some sort of vaguely socialist-ish wealth redistribution plan, but they will never admit to that.

Well, free trade is detrimental to low-skilled labor because it means their jobs can be easily outsourced......but honestly who gives a fuck? If somebody is too lazy to expand their skill set to remain relevant, why should society slow down to accommodate them?

>If China can make better and cheaper missile defense systems than the US, it just makes more sense to buy from them; letting US engineers find new jobs.
and how the fuck are you supposed to go to war with China then genius?

What impetus do people have to support a society that does not benefit them?

They wouldn't go to war with China, because the US needs missile systems and china needs US money

Circle of supply and demand

So in other words we're at China's mercy.
Fuck you.

China is going to be the next super power. Accept reality. I'm already starting to learn Mandarin. English will become obsolete.

>sell your country out to a foreign power
>act like their eclipsing your country is a fait accomplit that was just sort of ordained to happen by magic and your selling your country out is unrelated

I genuinely wish people like you ill.

He's just being an ebin funposter, the US will never be retarded enough to outsource vital defense industry jobs to a state that is a direct competitor.

It's out of our control. We're just peasants. We can't do anything about it.

>but honestly who gives a fuck
most people
because most people are "lazy" and can't specialize.

>destroyed the global economy
You mean people in free market societies had to scale back their lifestyles from ludicrously wealthy back to just being ridiculously wealthy for a few years?

because society is made up of these "lazy people".

not that it'll matter, most jobs, including white collar positions will be automated in the next few decades.

Fell for the bait

>Brexit is an example of this, literally destroying the economic capabilities and stability of a powerful country out of fear they might have to live near brown people
You get all your political insight from The Guardian don't you?

>What impetus do people have to support a society that does not benefit them?

Because specializing is not that easy depending on your circumstances. If education is free it's easy to do. If it costs your first born child then that puts a wrench into your plans.

Well more brown folk are gonna come in. Britain has to negotiate new deals and shit without the EU back it up.

>Honestly the question you posted would have been better off asked by Blacks in South Africa. only with the races reversed.

which question exactly?

A couple things politics can sometimes outweighs economics. The United States won't buy middle from China cause it wishes to control it's military resources. There would too much leverage if it didn't. Same idea with farm subsidies. Secondly I do believe free trade has a positive overall economic effect in the long run, but that doesn't mean that certain groups and places will lose out in the process. We shouldn't stop expanding trade for because of them, but these groups can't just be ignored. It does seem that one of these groups that lose out are poor workers in developed countries who have a hard time competing with developing world workers. Partially, because the standard of living in these countries are so high and the workers need s certain price otherwise they wouldn't work. Also, developed governments usually restrict how poorly you treat your workers.

The market economy is not everything. It must find its place in a higher order of things which is not ruled by supply and demand, free prices and competition. It must be firmly contained in an all-embracing order of society in which the imperfections and harshness of economic freedom are corrected by law and in which man is not denied conditions of life appropriate to his nature.

Ok, but why exactly shouldn't we pour our efforts into automation and technology to turn around and make better/cheaper cars/missile defense systems over here rather than shoveling it into meme industries like finance and marketing or leaving it in the pockets of rich fucks to rot?

Weird, British people were saying the same shit in 1914