Ending Protectionism

[firefox28]

The G-20 called for the end of protectionism. On a closer analysis, there won't be an end to protectionism. The EU still has its Common Agricultural Policies which benefits farmers at the expense of African households while the US still has massive subsidies for its major industries. Do you think President Obama will really "end protectionism"?

[backscatter712]

1. I'm actually for reimplementing protectionism, at least on a low-to-moderate level.

As a computer programmer, I'm sick and tired of being forced to compete against people from India, China and elsewhere who get paid a tenth of what I would get paid, and far below even minimal cost-of-living standards in the U.S.

Yes, I want some protectionism. I'm tired of the race to the bottom. Everybody loses except the cigar-smokers from Wall Street in their Learjets.

[ulysses]

2. I'm still waiting for the call to let labor follow capital across borders.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amandabeech]

6. I hope that you realize that a lot of American workers have had their jobs sent to

very low wage countries that either don't have workplace or environmental rules or don't enforce them so that you can buy, buy and buy cheap goods.

Why not consider giving the difference between what it would have cost to have it made here and what it cost to have it made, often with subsidies, abroad? Send your gifts to any soup kitchen in a manufacturing town.

[ulysses]

7. so do I. just not at the expense of the folks who produce those items.

[safeinOhio]

4. Global markets need global unions.

[ulysses]

5. much agreed. n/t

[The2ndWheel]

14. Global corporations need global government

Otherwise, the corporations are able to play the hundreds of regional governments against each other as the governments act in their own private interests.

[backscatter712]

22. I'm interested in that AND protectionism.

My theory is that we have our border policies bass-ackwards.

Today, we let stuff go across our borders freely, but have draconian rules preventing people from traveling freely or emigrating to the U.S.

What would happen if we put tariffs up to discourage cheap imported stuff, but let people come in and out of the country freely?

I think this country would be a much more pleasant place - freedom of movement, we can end persecution of brown people, because our industries are protected and there's financial incentive to build here instead of importing, there will be jobs for everyone, including immigrants.

That's my blueprint. Instead of letting stuff move across borders freely while blocking people, we should let people move across borders freely, while tariffing stuff.

[avaistheone1]

8. Globalism only benefits the corporations.

The corporations take their jobs to the countries with the lowest wages. We can't compete on wages with people in China or in India.

If our government is not going to protect the American people on issues as important and fundamental to our lives as jobs, then who will?

[firefox28]

9. US goods and developing countries

It is more the fact that goods from the US and the industrialised world flood the markets of developing countries while developing countries can't export their goods to the developed world due to the high degree of non-tariff barriers. The developed world has championed for trade liberalisation but they don't practice their own calls.

[namahage]

11. See, though, that's the problem.

The U.S. DOESN'T make a lot of goods. One reason being the globalization you're endorsing.

[firefox28]

12. Huh?

US drugs and US agricultural goods have been flooding developing countries. These are backed up by Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), subsisides and bilateral agreements which force countries to accept US goods while their own producers lose out.

Whether it is tariffs or subsidies, these still account as "protectionism".

[pampango]

17. Actually, we are the largest manufacturing country in the world.

Two problems. One is that the rest of the world is catching up, as they develop and much of our manufacturing is heavily automated, so that manufacturing employment has not kept pace with the level of overall manufacturing.

http://nam.org/~/media/Files/s_nam/docs/237700/237687.pdf.ashx

[Romulox]

21. The US has the largest trade deficit in the history of humanity. Just thought you should know. nt

[xchrom]

10. not interested in ending 'protectionism'.

it's a term that has utterly lost it's meaning.

workers in 'first' world countries simply cannot compete against workers who for less than two thirds of what they make in 'thrd' world' countries.

the WTO would be better off helping under developed counties trade with each other.

and bring back a more vigorous trade with equals in 'first world' countries.

global supply chains, logistics, etc are not in the best interest of the planet -- or workers on the ground as it stands now.

western europe has millions of citizens in eastern europe who want to get up to speed -- we have latin america right here.

india and china have each other.

trade and growth can and should be accomplished closer to home.

[firefox28]

13. Developing countries

Developing countries have always been on the losing side in the process. The companies in industrialised nations enjoy subsidies or tax rebates from their governments while less developed countries don't. Trade agreements such as the Uruguay Round and the Doha format benefit mainly western countries. Economists like Stiglitz, Sachs and even Krugman have argued about the biased nature of the international trading system.

[The2ndWheel]

15. "trade and growth can and should be accomplished closer to home"

They were. The success of trade and growth closer to home is the reason we now have global supply chains, logistics, etc, because where home was grew.

[xchrom]

16. huh?

we've gotten all the really good trade we could get out of europe and from trade in this hemisphere?

admittedly constantly running things for 8% growth or better each and every quarter will have us running to china and india for more cheap labour and consumers.

but it isn't strictly speaking necessary.

[The2ndWheel]

18. I'm saying that once growth enters the equation

it will engulf the planet into a single way of doing things. Unless the energy to continue that process isn't available.

"workers in 'first' world countries simply cannot compete against workers who for less than two thirds of what they make in 'thrd' world' countries"

Sure they can. They'll be forced to, whether they want to or not. The same way non-European civilizations were forced to compete against the increasingly global European civilizations(and also other non-European civilizations closer to home). The solution to that is to erase all of those borders that divide first and third world countries. Always easier said than done though, seeing as how even the 50 united states of America aren't all on the same page on every issue. But the basic foundation is there.

"the WTO would be better off helping under developed counties trade with each other"

Except that isn't what the WTO was created for.

"western europe has millions of citizens in eastern europe who want to get up to speed -- we have latin america right here. india and china have each other"

Then what? If it's successful, eventually growth will require that we end up with a global supply chain.

[firefox28]

19. Reply

it will engulf the planet into a single way of doing things. Unless the energy to continue that process isn't available.



"workers in 'first' world countries simply cannot compete against workers who for less than two thirds of what they make in 'thrd' world' countries"

Sure they can. They'll be forced to, whether they want to or not. The same way non-European civilizations were forced to compete against the increasingly global European civilizations(and also other non-European civilizations closer to home). The solution to that is to erase all of those borders that divide first and third world countries. Always easier said than done though, seeing as how even the 50 united states of America aren't all on the same page on every issue. But the basic foundation is there.



"the WTO would be better off helping under developed counties trade with each other"

Except that isn't what the WTO was created for.



"western europe has millions of citizens in eastern europe who want to get up to speed -- we have latin america right here. india and china have each other"



Then what? If it's successful, eventually growth will require that we end up with a global supply chain.

[xchrom]

20. your scenario is not inevitable and the WTO does

whatever the rules participating nations make it do.

peak oil will force contractions period -- so why let chaos rule those changes?
we are smart enough to get ahead of it -- look for slower growth -- return manufacturing to closer to home.

8% or better growth rules and all the pressures associated with them help to get us into this mess -- all of that can and should be re-imagined.

there is great growth to be had -- albeit slower -- with better trade and competition-- first between counties who are more equal -- euope and the u.s., -- china, india and pakistan.

simply rolling over and giving in to a mistaken beief that things must be inevitable doesn't provide our solutions.