Some protectionists argue that high tariffs and other trade restrictions are often necessary to keep a country’s culture from changing, or from changing too rapidly. Other protectionists argue that high tariffs and other trade restrictions are often necessary to allow “infant industries” to be born, grow, and mature in the home country.
These two often-heard pleas for restrictions on consumers’ freedom to spend as they wish do not sit easily beside each other.
Share
{ 21 comments }
So what? I assume there are some anti-protectionists who agree with you that protectionism is bad economic policy, but disagree with you about why. Do you have someone in mind, as an example, who makes both of these arguments you mention? If not, then why does it matter that they “do not sit easily beside each other”?
Of course, I can quite imagine some politician or special interest arguing this way — such people seek to convince others for political expediency, rather than by principle.
Strikes me as neo-colonialism. Nobody here is worried that importing foreign goods, food or people is going to somehow change our culture for the worse, nobody worth listening to anyway. But, somehow a couple of McDonalds and a starbucks are somehow a threat to foreign cultures? What’s the implicit reasoning behind it? Their culture is weak and must be protected from modernity. That way me and my rich white friends can go adventuring through Asia and have an `authentic’ oriental experience. It’s nonsense.
The symbols of American culture in places like China tend to be allocated to the modernized cities. If you want an ‘authentic experience’, I’m pretty sure one is to be had. Heck, there are small towns in America where the big corporate hand has not reached and you can experience 1930s charm.
The first argument is made people (generally from the west) who want to got to these places on holiday. This idea is hypocritical at best, but is generally extremely destructive
The second argument is the one I hear the most. Particularly from my Brazilian friends. Apparently Brazilian consumers don’t mind paying as much as 3 to 4x the price we pay for imported perfume (this is just 1 example) so long as it doesn’t harm their cosmetics “industry”. Ditto for electronics, cars, and clothes.
MWG
Are you joking when you say they don’t mind paying more for perfume etc? Or are you serious? It is hard to tell sometimes when reading if someone is being facetious.
I’m definitely joking… That said, I often find the same people who complain about having to pay so much for certain product will also think “infant industry” protections are perfectly logical.
Is there something to be said about “helping” an infant industry? I just finished Free To Choose and in the book Friedman comments on infant industry. Do we have a real life example where an infant industry was “helped” (Subsidy, Tariff, etc) and then the arguement played out and they were able to stand on their own two feet and then the product became cheaper and benefited society? Then the gov’t lifted the protectionist measures. ( Friedman mentions this to be one of the main reasons against supporting infant industries)Maybe in the case of breaking a monopoly it would be appropriate?I believe I understand the arguements against protectionism and agree they are very harmful. I can imagine maybe an industry that might have needed help in the infant stage, but I know of no real life examples.
I’ve asked myself that same question because, as I said, I’ve heard this argument so much. The problem is… at the risk of sound muir-ish… in the “real world”, these industries almost never grow up. Because of their protections, they become fat and bloated yet very powerful and adept at lobbying for increased protections or an increased length in protections.
More importantly, the govt. has no way of knowing which industry, in it’s infancy, is worth “protecting”. Take personal computers… back in the early 80s the govt. had no way to look at someone like Bill Gates (who was working out of a motel) and say, “I think this guy has something, let’s help him out”.
I was driving in Canada and heard The Beatles “You Won’t See Me” performed By Ann Murray. That sums up protectionism right there.
Yuck!!!! Sounds utterly dreadful. There should be a law!
Beneath much of this “protectionism” is simple, ugly racism and xenophobia. I doesn’t take long to see that deep down, the real thinking goes something like: “How dare we let all these “American” jobs go to those nasty brown and yellow people!”.
Not really. It’s pretty much all bad economic thinking
It’s surely bad economic thinking on the part of some elite advocates, but the feelings it leverages in the public are group-dynamics and xenophobia. Fear of Mexicans, Indians and Chinese taking jobs away from Americans.
It is severely overstated. It is mostly just an argument by people trying to conflate other’s bad economic thinking with racism, which is an overused and foul tactic in political debate to divert the issue and avoid reasoned arguments by smearing the opposition with false ugly accusations.
People simply don’t want to lose employment or money. If they believed people of other nationalities or races were becoming enriched while they too were becoming enriched, there would be no issue.
soo true.
I don’t think that the fear of losing one’s job, health insurance, house and watching the prospects of your kids go down the tubes are as unreasonable as apparently some of you think on this board.
I don’t think that fear unreasonable, but what about the guy(s) x1000) who never got a job, insurance, house, etc because that one guy got to keep his job from protection. I do believe that we should help those who loose their jobs if we lifted prtectionist measures with education, money or something. It was not their fault the industry was protected, they just wanted to work and be productive, well as long as they were not union supporters.
Can’t one make the case that tariffs protected northern industry prior to the Civil War from the goods that the British would’ve otherwise have dumped in the states? That industry was critical in saving the Union during the Civil War. I may be presuming, but I would hope most people on this board would consider that a good thing.
complete crap,i support the complete separation of economy and state,and church and state.
I agree they “almost never grow up,” but where does this “almost” come in? Surely there is an example out there. Good point the gov’t has no idea which industry could make it, but venture capitalist do the same thing. They invest in 5 infants and 1 makes it and the one that does make it more than pays for itself. I agree in general it’s a bad idea and wishful thinking, but somewhere maybe there is an example?
The closest example in Brazil might be EMBRAER (their version Bombardier). It was govt. run until the 90s (don’t quote me on the year) when they almost went bankrupt. I think most people would agree today that they’re a “success”. The industry as a whole was highly protected up until the last 5 years or so. They still receive limited subsidies from the govt. who will offer low interest rates to companies who purchase their planes. That said… for every EMBRAER there are 20 examples of companies/industries who protections have/will not work.