Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Comments

  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    @Citrus4Troogs is only feeg here worth a shit. teh rest of you our lucky eye poast hear at awl.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,458 Founders Club
  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346

    FO,G

    Hurtful and insightful.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,727 Standard Supporter
    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    If the US/Russia would just treat the Middle East/OPEC states like FDR and Stalin butt-fucked Hitler together as allies, we could all start ringing the register.


  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,511 Founders Club
    But how is Obama a bad world leader?
  • doogsinparadisedoogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    Protectionism is capitalist?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,458 Founders Club
    A variety of policies have been used to achieve protectionist goals. These include:

    Tariffs: Typically, tariffs (or taxes) are imposed on imported goods. Tariff rates usually vary according to the type of goods imported. Import tariffs will increase the cost to importers, and increase the price of imported goods in the local markets, thus lowering the quantity of goods imported, to favour local producers. Tariffs may also be imposed on exports, and in an economy with floating exchange rates, export tariffs have similar effects as import tariffs. However, since export tariffs are often perceived as 'hurting' local industries, while import tariffs are perceived as 'helping' local industries, export tariffs are seldom implemented.
    Import quotas: To reduce the quantity and therefore increase the market price of imported goods. The economic effects of an import quota is similar to that of a tariff, except that the tax revenue gain from a tariff will instead be distributed to those who receive import licenses. Economists often suggest that import licenses be auctioned to the highest bidder, or that import quotas be replaced by an equivalent tariff.
    Administrative barriers: Countries are sometimes accused of using their various administrative rules (e.g. regarding food safety, environmental standards, electrical safety, etc.) as a way to introduce barriers to imports.
    Anti-dumping legislation: Supporters of anti-dumping laws argue that they prevent "dumping" of cheaper foreign goods that would cause local firms to close down. However, in practice, anti-dumping laws are usually used to impose trade tariffs on foreign exporters.
    Direct subsidies: Government subsidies (in the form of lump-sum payments or cheap loans) are sometimes given to local firms that cannot compete well against imports. These subsidies are purported to "protect" local jobs, and to help local firms adjust to the world markets.
    Export subsidies: Export subsidies are often used by governments to increase exports. Export subsidies have the opposite effect of export tariffs because exporters get payment, which is a percentage or proportion of the value of exported. Export subsidies increase the amount of trade, and in a country with floating exchange rates, have effects similar to import subsidies.
    Exchange rate manipulation: A government may intervene in the foreign exchange market to lower the value of its currency by selling its currency in the foreign exchange market. Doing so will raise the cost of imports and lower the cost of exports, leading to an improvement in its trade balance. However, such a policy is only effective in the short run, as it will most likely lead to inflation in the country, which will in turn raise the cost of exports, and reduce the relative price of imports[citation needed].
    International patent systems: There is an argument for viewing national patent systems as a cloak for protectionist trade policies at a national level. Two strands of this argument exist: one when patents held by one country form part of a system of exploitable relative advantage in trade negotiations against another, and a second where adhering to a worldwide system of patents confers "good citizenship" status despite 'de facto protectionism'. Peter Drahos explains that "States realized that patent systems could be used to cloak protectionist strategies. There were also reputational advantages for states to be seen to be sticking to intellectual property systems. One could attend the various revisions of the Paris and Berne conventions, participate in the cosmopolitan moral dialogue about the need to protect the fruits of authorial labor and inventive genius...knowing all the while that one's domestic intellectual property system was a handy protectionist weapon."[3]
    Employment-based immigration restrictions, such as labor certification requirements or numerical caps on work visas.
    Political campaigns advocating domestic consumption (e.g. the "Buy American" campaign in the United States, which could be seen as an extra-legal promotion of protectionism.)
    Preferential governmental spending, such as the Buy American Act, federal legislation which called upon the United States government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases.
    In the modern trade arena many other initiatives besides tariffs have been called protectionist. For example, some commentators, such as Jagdish Bhagwati, see developed countries efforts in imposing their own labor or environmental standards as protectionism. Also, the imposition of restrictive certification procedures on imports are seen in this light.

    Further, others point out that free trade agreements often have protectionist provisions such as intellectual property, copyright, and patent restrictions that benefit large corporations. These provisions restrict trade in music, movies, pharmaceuticals, software, and other manufactured items to high cost producers with quotas from low cost producers set to zero.[4][5]

    History[edit]
    See also: American School (economics)
    Historically, protectionism was associated with economic theories such as mercantilism (that believed that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance), and import substitution. During that time, Adam Smith famously warned against the "interested sophistry" of industry, seeking to gain advantage at the cost of the consumers.[6] Friedrich List saw Adam Smith's views on free trade as disingenuous and really in support of a long-term British program for economic domination:

    Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.[7]

    From the passage of the Tariff of 1816 to WWII, protectionism was the policy of the United States, "switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out" by the war.[8] In the late 19th Century, Germany, too, used protectionist measures to grow its industry.[9] After WWII, Japan followed that model.[10] It has also been argued that Deng Xiaoping's post-Mao policies were inspired by List,[11] as well as recent policies in India.[12][13]

    Arguments for protectionism[edit]
    Although neoliberal economists are generally against the policy of trade restrictions, protectionists believe that there is a legitimate need for government restrictions on free trade in order to protect their country’s economy and its people’s standard of living, for example Pres. William McKinley in 1892:

    "Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral.... Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest'.... Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."[14]

    Infant industry argument[edit]
    Main article: Infant industry argument
    Protectionists believe that infant industries must be protected in order to allow them to grow to a point where they can fairly compete with the larger mature industries established in foreign countries. They believe that without this protection, infant industries will die before they reach a size and age where economies of scale, industrial infrastructure, and skill in manufacturing have progressed sufficiently to allow the industry to compete in the global market.

    Arguments against protectionism[edit]
    Protectionism is frequently criticized by economists as harming the people it is meant to help. Mainstream economists instead support free trade.[6][15] The principle of comparative advantage shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage.[16] Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.[17]

    Economists, including Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, believe that free trade helps workers in developing countries, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing — and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates — has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions.[18] Economists[who?] have suggested that those who support protectionism ostensibly to further the interests of workers in least developed countries are in fact being disingenuous, seeking only to protect jobs in developed countries.[19] Additionally, workers in the least developed countries only accept jobs if they are the best on offer, as all mutually consensual exchanges must be of benefit to both sides, or else they wouldn't be entered into freely. That they accept low-paying jobs from companies in developed countries shows that their other employment prospects are worse. A letter reprinted in the May 2010 edition of Econ Journal Watch identifies a similar sentiment against protectionism from sixteen British economists at the beginning of the 20th century.[20]

    Alan Greenspan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticized protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."[21]

    Protectionism has also been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantilist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about ostensibly due to British tariffs and taxes, as well as the protective policies preceding both World War I and World War II. According to a slogan of Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."[22]

    Free trade promotes equal access to domestic resources (human, natural, capital, etc.) for domestic participants and foreign participants alike. Some thinkers[who?][citation needed] extend that under free trade, citizens of participating countries deserve equal access to resources and social welfare (labor laws, education, etc.). Visa entrance policies tend to discourage free reallocation between many countries, and encourage it with others. High freedom and mobility has been shown to lead to far greater development than aid programs in many[citation needed] cases, for example eastern European countries in the European Union. In other words, visa entrance requirements are a form of local protectionism.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    Yeah nothing says capitalism like state-owned oil companies.
  • HippopeteamusHippopeteamus Member Posts: 1,958
    edited November 2015

    Protectionism is capitalist?

    The invisible hand is apparently an Su-35.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,727 Standard Supporter

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    Yeah nothing says capitalism like state-owned oil companies.
    Is good to be state owned if you own state.

  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,458 Founders Club

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    Yeah nothing says capitalism like state-owned oil companies.
    If the state can control the land, which in America it does, then the state controls what is under it. Or under the ocean.

    America has defacto state ownership. I believe the OP is suggesting that America, like Putin, start using their energy supplies in a way that benefits America and leaves the sand people to blow each other up so we can slip in and take their oil as well
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,727 Standard Supporter

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    Yeah nothing says capitalism like state-owned oil companies.
    If the state can control the land, which in America it does, then the state controls what is under it. Or under the ocean.

    America has defacto state ownership. I believe the OP is suggesting that America, like Putin, start using their energy supplies in a way that benefits America and leaves the sand people to blow each other up so we can slip in and take their oil as well
    Correctomundo, comrade.


  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    Yeah nothing says capitalism like state-owned oil companies.
    If the state can control the land, which in America it does, then the state controls what is under it. Or under the ocean.

    America has defacto state ownership. I believe the OP is suggesting that America, like Putin, start using their energy supplies in a way that benefits America and leaves the sand people to blow each other up so we can slip in and take their oil as well
    No. The OP was suggesting that if you mess with the bull, you get the horns. ;)
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,458 Founders Club
    TheGlove said:

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    Yeah nothing says capitalism like state-owned oil companies.
    If the state can control the land, which in America it does, then the state controls what is under it. Or under the ocean.

    America has defacto state ownership. I believe the OP is suggesting that America, like Putin, start using their energy supplies in a way that benefits America and leaves the sand people to blow each other up so we can slip in and take their oil as well
    No. The OP was suggesting that if you mess with the bull, you get the horns. ;)
    I had long forgotten about the REAL OP
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama. Most all of his military actions are geared toward protecting Russia's oil and gas markets.

    Yeah nothing says capitalism like state-owned oil companies.
    If the state can control the land, which in America it does, then the state controls what is under it. Or under the ocean.

    America has defacto state ownership. I believe the OP is suggesting that America, like Putin, start using their energy supplies in a way that benefits America and leaves the sand people to blow each other up so we can slip in and take their oil as well
    That's fine, and I'd be all for it too, but nationalization is pretty much a cornerstone of socialism.
  • AtomicPissAtomicPiss Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 64,410 Founders Club

    The crazy thing is Putin is more of a capitalist than Obama.

    Sark is better than Ty
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,907 Founders Club

    A variety of policies have been used to achieve protectionist goals. These include:

    Tariffs: Typically, tariffs (or taxes) are imposed on imported goods. Tariff rates usually vary according to the type of goods imported. Import tariffs will increase the cost to importers, and increase the price of imported goods in the local markets, thus lowering the quantity of goods imported, to favour local producers. Tariffs may also be imposed on exports, and in an economy with floating exchange rates, export tariffs have similar effects as import tariffs. However, since export tariffs are often perceived as 'hurting' local industries, while import tariffs are perceived as 'helping' local industries, export tariffs are seldom implemented.
    Import quotas: To reduce the quantity and therefore increase the market price of imported goods. The economic effects of an import quota is similar to that of a tariff, except that the tax revenue gain from a tariff will instead be distributed to those who receive import licenses. Economists often suggest that import licenses be auctioned to the highest bidder, or that import quotas be replaced by an equivalent tariff.
    Administrative barriers: Countries are sometimes accused of using their various administrative rules (e.g. regarding food safety, environmental standards, electrical safety, etc.) as a way to introduce barriers to imports.
    Anti-dumping legislation: Supporters of anti-dumping laws argue that they prevent "dumping" of cheaper foreign goods that would cause local firms to close down. However, in practice, anti-dumping laws are usually used to impose trade tariffs on foreign exporters.
    Direct subsidies: Government subsidies (in the form of lump-sum payments or cheap loans) are sometimes given to local firms that cannot compete well against imports. These subsidies are purported to "protect" local jobs, and to help local firms adjust to the world markets.
    Export subsidies: Export subsidies are often used by governments to increase exports. Export subsidies have the opposite effect of export tariffs because exporters get payment, which is a percentage or proportion of the value of exported. Export subsidies increase the amount of trade, and in a country with floating exchange rates, have effects similar to import subsidies.
    Exchange rate manipulation: A government may intervene in the foreign exchange market to lower the value of its currency by selling its currency in the foreign exchange market. Doing so will raise the cost of imports and lower the cost of exports, leading to an improvement in its trade balance. However, such a policy is only effective in the short run, as it will most likely lead to inflation in the country, which will in turn raise the cost of exports, and reduce the relative price of imports[citation needed].
    International patent systems: There is an argument for viewing national patent systems as a cloak for protectionist trade policies at a national level. Two strands of this argument exist: one when patents held by one country form part of a system of exploitable relative advantage in trade negotiations against another, and a second where adhering to a worldwide system of patents confers "good citizenship" status despite 'de facto protectionism'. Peter Drahos explains that "States realized that patent systems could be used to cloak protectionist strategies. There were also reputational advantages for states to be seen to be sticking to intellectual property systems. One could attend the various revisions of the Paris and Berne conventions, participate in the cosmopolitan moral dialogue about the need to protect the fruits of authorial labor and inventive genius...knowing all the while that one's domestic intellectual property system was a handy protectionist weapon."[3]
    Employment-based immigration restrictions, such as labor certification requirements or numerical caps on work visas.
    Political campaigns advocating domestic consumption (e.g. the "Buy American" campaign in the United States, which could be seen as an extra-legal promotion of protectionism.)
    Preferential governmental spending, such as the Buy American Act, federal legislation which called upon the United States government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases.
    In the modern trade arena many other initiatives besides tariffs have been called protectionist. For example, some commentators, such as Jagdish Bhagwati, see developed countries efforts in imposing their own labor or environmental standards as protectionism. Also, the imposition of restrictive certification procedures on imports are seen in this light.

    Further, others point out that free trade agreements often have protectionist provisions such as intellectual property, copyright, and patent restrictions that benefit large corporations. These provisions restrict trade in music, movies, pharmaceuticals, software, and other manufactured items to high cost producers with quotas from low cost producers set to zero.[4][5]

    History[edit]
    See also: American School (economics)
    Historically, protectionism was associated with economic theories such as mercantilism (that believed that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance), and import substitution. During that time, Adam Smith famously warned against the "interested sophistry" of industry, seeking to gain advantage at the cost of the consumers.[6] Friedrich List saw Adam Smith's views on free trade as disingenuous and really in support of a long-term British program for economic domination:

    Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.[7]

    From the passage of the Tariff of 1816 to WWII, protectionism was the policy of the United States, "switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out" by the war.[8] In the late 19th Century, Germany, too, used protectionist measures to grow its industry.[9] After WWII, Japan followed that model.[10] It has also been argued that Deng Xiaoping's post-Mao policies were inspired by List,[11] as well as recent policies in India.[12][13]

    Arguments for protectionism[edit]
    Although neoliberal economists are generally against the policy of trade restrictions, protectionists believe that there is a legitimate need for government restrictions on free trade in order to protect their country’s economy and its people’s standard of living, for example Pres. William McKinley in 1892:

    "Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral.... Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest'.... Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."[14]

    Infant industry argument[edit]
    Main article: Infant industry argument
    Protectionists believe that infant industries must be protected in order to allow them to grow to a point where they can fairly compete with the larger mature industries established in foreign countries. They believe that without this protection, infant industries will die before they reach a size and age where economies of scale, industrial infrastructure, and skill in manufacturing have progressed sufficiently to allow the industry to compete in the global market.

    Arguments against protectionism[edit]
    Protectionism is frequently criticized by economists as harming the people it is meant to help. Mainstream economists instead support free trade.[6][15] The principle of comparative advantage shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage.[16] Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.[17]

    Economists, including Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, believe that free trade helps workers in developing countries, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing — and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates — has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions.[18] Economists[who?] have suggested that those who support protectionism ostensibly to further the interests of workers in least developed countries are in fact being disingenuous, seeking only to protect jobs in developed countries.[19] Additionally, workers in the least developed countries only accept jobs if they are the best on offer, as all mutually consensual exchanges must be of benefit to both sides, or else they wouldn't be entered into freely. That they accept low-paying jobs from companies in developed countries shows that their other employment prospects are worse. A letter reprinted in the May 2010 edition of Econ Journal Watch identifies a similar sentiment against protectionism from sixteen British economists at the beginning of the 20th century.[20]

    Alan Greenspan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticized protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."[21]

    Protectionism has also been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantilist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about ostensibly due to British tariffs and taxes, as well as the protective policies preceding both World War I and World War II. According to a slogan of Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."[22]

    Free trade promotes equal access to domestic resources (human, natural, capital, etc.) for domestic participants and foreign participants alike. Some thinkers[who?][citation needed] extend that under free trade, citizens of participating countries deserve equal access to resources and social welfare (labor laws, education, etc.). Visa entrance policies tend to discourage free reallocation between many countries, and encourage it with others. High freedom and mobility has been shown to lead to far greater development than aid programs in many[citation needed] cases, for example eastern European countries in the European Union. In other words, visa entrance requirements are a form of local protectionism.

    Disagree.
Sign In or Register to comment.