View Poll Results: Free Trade or Protectionism?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Free Trade

    29 61.70%
  • Protectionism

    18 38.30%
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 162

Thread: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

  1. #1
    Professor
    Bigfoot 88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    12-01-15 @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,027
    Blog Entries
    1

    "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    Do you prefer a policy of "Free Trade", which means no tariffs on imports, or "Protectionism", which means tariffs are placed on imports.
    "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -Thomas Sowell

  2. #2
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    Most definitely free trade. It's the single greatest driver of the American economy (and the global economy), and it greatly increases the purchasing power of all nations that participate. Protectionism makes ALL countries involved worse off.

    If some nations are better at producing widgets and other nations are better at producing gizmos, so be it. It makes no sense to implement barriers to trade just to protect some unproductive widget factories in the gizmo-producing country. The gains to purchasing power will make up for the lost jobs many times over.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-30-12 at 04:42 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,136

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    i prefer free trade with partner nations which adopt OSHA-type worker protections and the environmental standards that US companies must comply with. those that don't should be subject to tariffs proportional to level of noncompliance.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    As a whole I prefer free trade, but mostly within blocs.

    The more Asian exportation I see, the more likely I'm inclined to agree that some protectionism isn't better.

    Just think of how right Perot was back when he said that the passing of NAFTA would result in a "loud sucking sound from the south" in regards to American jobs.

  5. #5
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfoot 88 View Post
    Do you prefer a policy of "Free Trade", which means no tariffs on imports, or "Protectionism", which means tariffs are placed on imports.

    We should have selective tariffs.Outsourced companies that adhere to the same standards that American companies have to abide by and pay workers the same or close to what American would make doing those jobs should not have any tariffs imposed on their products. Companies that do not adhere to the same standards that American companies have to abide by and do not pay their workers the same should face tariffs on their products. Companies should not be allowed to outsource just so they can pay workers 23-37 cents an hour, require workers to work 80 hour work week, lack worker protection laws and lack environmental laws

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
    Li said these factories often require employees to work as many as 80 hours per week during the busy season for $75 to $110 per month, violating Chinese labor laws.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #6
    User teaser47401's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    01-05-14 @ 02:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    My considered thoughts on the question:

    Traditional protectionists, like America’s founding fathers, needed no other rational for imposing tariffs than that they benefited American companies. The second law enacted by the newly formed federal government of the United States was the creation of tariffs.

    “Us versus them” was the basis for American trade policy for the first hundred years of our history. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the definition of “us” became subject to debate. The northern industrialized states, which held a majority in government, favored protective tariffs culminating in the Morrill Tariff of 1861 which more than doubled tariffs on durable goods. The South, which traded cotton for these goods, resented paying the premium for, what they perceived, as the sole benefit of northern industry. “Us versus them” became North versus South and historians point to this debate over tariffs as a contributing factor for the American Civil War.

    This debate over the definition of “Us” was settled at Appomattox with Lee’s surrender. Protectionist trade policies continued until 1912 when America instituted the Federal Income Tax. This shift in economic policy was caused by a new economic theory, “Comparative Advantage”. It argued that the vast majority of people are better off if restrictions to trade are removed. The debate over America’s trade policy shifted from “Us vs. Them” to “Enlightened vs. Unenlightened”. Protectionists were viewed in the same unflattering light as those denying Evolution. Science, the enlightened argued, settled the question of proper trade policy in favor of Free Trade. Protectionists simply didn’t understand that Tariffs introduced detrimental drag in the economic engine, and, that that inefficiency hurt everyone.

    Over the next hundred years of our nation’s history the principle of free trade became dogma. Even as America put unheard of limits on domestic industry for the purpose of protecting workers, consumers, and the American market, from the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism, free international trade was considered sacrosanct. The only rational left for Tariffs became to affect political or a retaliatory trade measure. Tariffs were relegated to a means to chastise our enemies or as leverage to open foreign markets. But, the “Enlightened” agreed that in an ideal world, there would be no restrictions on international trade. Free Trade became an axiom of economic science rather than a result.

    Neo-protectionists challenge this dogma. We argue that laissez-faire capitalism is no more appropriate for international trade than it is for domestic trade. We point out that the Comparative Advantage theory which is the economic basis for free trade policy is itself based on two assumptions which are no longer true.

    The first assumption is that capital is immobile. The comparative advantage theory assumes that if a country does not have an advantage in producing a particular good or service, that country will take its capital and invest in another industry where it can be competitive. In practice however, if an American company can not operate competitively within America, it will simply move its operations to a country where it can compete. Money, free of national boundaries, seeks absolute advantage regardless of nationalistic concerns.

    But, money is stored labor, created by the sweat and ingenuity of a country’s people and while that stored labor (money) may move freely across international boarders, a country’s population cannot. Thus, there exists a residual capital represented by a people’s willingness to work which remains immobile. While the accumulated portion of a nation’s wealth is free to globally seek greatest return on investment, the wealth represented by the American people must seek out a comparative advantage. American’s, fired or laid-off from outsourced jobs, must seek some niche where they may earn a living. The immobility of capital represented by a nation’s workforce might be argued to save the Comparative Advantage theory and by extension the argument for Free Trade policies. It may be argued that mobility of capital may make the transition from one industry to another more difficult, but it does not entirely invalidate the theory Comparative Advantage.

    However, Comparative Advantage is based on another assumption, one that does invalidate its application to our current global economy. That is the assumption of full employment. Over the past hundred years, man’s ingenuity has elevated his productivity to levels never before seen in human history. Advances in Science, Agriculture and Engineering have made it unnecessary for the entire population to work in order to fill the material needs of mankind. Comparative Advantage and in fact economic theory in general, is based on the assumption that more is better. That demand is unbounded. That, if a nation’s population cannot compete in one industry, there is always an unmet demand somewhere else that can be profitably exploited. But, the cornucopia of global capitalism, fueled by human ingenuity, pours out food, clothing, housing, entertainment, and all man’s material needs without the efforts of his entire population. The problem is no longer one of resource allocation. It is one of distribution and capitalism has no mechanism for distributing goods and services to those with nothing to barter.

    America is on the leading edge of an economic revolution brought about by our own achievements. Western science and technology, which has been freely exported around the world, has altered the basic assumptions of America, that under capitalism any man or woman can, with hard work, create a better life for their children than they had growing up. For those, like me, gifted by their parents with an education, capitalism still works. But it’s only a matter of time before an education and technical competence will only be a license to compete, not a guarantee of success. As the percentage of the world’s population needed to fulfill the world’s material needs declines, competition for jobs will increase, as will unemployment. Capitalism will insure the best and the brightest are rewarded, but capitalism has no need for the rest of the population. The gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen as the middle class is pushed up or down the economic ladder, with the vast majority being pushed down. Eventually the unemployed populace of our nation will demand the government provide for their needs. America will become a welfare nation paid for by the few who give the unemployed just enough to stave off revolution. The result will be socialist America with its populace dependant on its government to meet their basic needs.


    America has long recognized that its citizens need protection from the excesses of capitalism. Through laws such as a minimum wage, child labor, anti-trust, environmental protection, workplace safety, collective bargaining, product safety, and domestic taxation, America has, with good cause, limited capitalism and imposed inefficiencies on our economy which make us simply unable to compete with products produced in countries free of social, environmental, and moral concerns. In order for America to manage the economic changes brought about by the world’s technological advances in productivity, America may well need to introduce further inefficiencies to the capitalist system. Inefficiencies such as laws further limiting the work week, laws mandating mandatory paid vacations, and increases in taxes to pay for social programs for the care of those economically disenfranchised.

    But, America can do none of these things so long as we surrender control of our markets and our economy to foreign imports. Imports produced under forms of capitalism outlawed in this nation. America must extend the same philosophy that allows us to limit domestic capitalism for social good to international trade. If not, these laws for social good will continue to devastate the American economy by making it unprofitable to manufacture here. There is simply no other way to preserve American culture in the face of the economic revolution that our advances in productivity have brought about.

    We Neo-protectionists believe that tariffs on products produced contrary to domestic law are necessary in order to protect America’s economic future. We believe that such tariffs, once agreed on in principle, may be implemented in a way which will benefit not only Americans, but the world as whole as we remove the incentives for exploitive business practices from American markets.

  7. #7
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,803

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    We should have selective tariffs.Outsourced companies that adhere to the same standards that American companies have to abide by and pay workers the same or close to what American would make doing those jobs should not have any tariffs imposed on their products. Companies that do not adhere to the same standards that American companies have to abide by and do not pay their workers the same should face tariffs on their products. Companies should not be allowed to outsource just so they can pay workers 23-37 cents an hour, require workers to work 80 hour work week, lack worker protection laws and lack environmental laws

    washingtonpost.com: Chinese Workers Pay for Wal-Mart's Low Prices
    Li said these factories often require employees to work as many as 80 hours per week during the busy season for $75 to $110 per month, violating Chinese labor laws.
    Exactly. I prefer free trade, but you cannot have no regulations either. I think any company based in the U.S. needs to follow U.S. laws regardless of what country they are manufacturing in. They have to follow all U.S. labor laws, pay U.S. wages, follow U.S. environmental laws, etc. Further, any company that leaves the U.S. in order to get out from under these requirements, for a period of 10 years or so, must pay a significant tariff for any product entering the U.S.

    Trying to get cheap, slave labor elsewhere should never be allowed to fly.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #8
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    Protectionism and fair trade.
    Saves american jobs, and is a more fair just system.


  9. #9
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Exactly. I prefer free trade, but you cannot have no regulations either. I think any company based in the U.S. needs to follow U.S. laws regardless of what country they are manufacturing in. They have to follow all U.S. labor laws, pay U.S. wages, follow U.S. environmental laws, etc. Further, any company that leaves the U.S. in order to get out from under these requirements, for a period of 10 years or so, must pay a significant tariff for any product entering the U.S.

    Trying to get cheap, slave labor elsewhere should never be allowed to fly.
    Sorry but this is bull****. It isn't realistic to expect a factory in Indonesia to pay US wages and follow US labor laws. Those things are luxuries for rich countries. When people say that "We'll trade with you as long as you [insert some unrealistic condition here]", it's really just a PC way of saying "We don't want to trade with you."
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #10
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,754

    Re: "Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

    A mixture.

    On the one hand, trade without tariffs and the like is the ideal situation, because it allows the various goods to flow more freely and cheaply between and through the various nations.


    But on the other hand, IMO some things (like quite frankly terrible working conditions in some areas of the world) are unacceptable...

    In other words, if trading with X nation supports and continues poor working conditions for its citizens, I’d tend to support some kind of tariffs against goods from that nation.


    However, currently, if we suddenly started putting tariffs on goods from China or the like... Well, we get a lot of cheap crap from places where the workers labor under poor conditions. So...
    --------------
    I dunno.

    Completely free trade would be great if there were also uniform rules and regulations for working conditions around the world.

    But there ain’t...

    Edit: Uniform rules and regulations for quality and the like as well.
    Last edited by The Mark; 06-30-12 at 09:15 PM.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •