So why are we so dead set against economic protectionism now?

Question

Our government seems to bow to U.N. influences when it comes to our trade policies. When Reagan was in office "Buy American" and "Made in America" were phrases that meant something and our economy was strong. We shouldn't we return to protectionism as we create new markets? New markets (i.e. green technologies, high speed rail , etc.)

Answer 1

Because it is a dumb idea.



First of all - protectionism will raise prices for the consumer are they are forced to buy higher-priced domestic goods.



Second of all - other countries will set tarrifs on US made goods - making it even harder for US companys to compete overseas.



Third - 'green technologies' have a 30 year record of failure. They have yet to produce any solution that is economically viable - and there is no expectation that (somehow) this is going to change.



Fourth - if high speed rail were a good idea in the US then private companies and investors would already be building the systems. Look at Amtrak as an example of how these high speed rail systems will simply become another drain on the taxpayer's wallet.

Answer 2

I can give you many. The main reason is that US or UK industries will never be competitive, nor have the incentive to become competitive, if they are not exposed to international competition. Ultimately this will be horrible for the consumer and thus the economy, and our economy would be sent into a downward spiral. We've seen it many times before in history. Argentina is one of the best recent cases of this. They tried to do something called import substitution industrialization and look where it go them. They went from one of the weathiest countries in the world to one of the poorest. A pretty sad story to be honest. Would you like to see your inflation go into the thousands of percent like them? If we really want to do what's best for our countries we need to stick to what we do best (where we have comparitive advantage) and let other nations do the rest (where they have comparative advantage). In the end we can trade with them and everybody wins (to put it simply). edit: the same economic principles apply whether it's the UK or US. And I can't imagine US manufacturing is much better off then UK manufacturing. Although these kinds of economic changes are painful at first (and not politically advantageous) in the form of job losses, the economy would emerge much stronger with a transition from a manufacturing economy to a services and technology economy (or whatever the UK is good at). By protecting inefficient manufacturers, all you're doing is ensuring that UK citizens will pay more for lower quality goods. That can never be good for any economy in the long run, and certainly decreases overall standar of living. Instead of throwing away billions of pounds into protectionism (which is another name for socialism and redistribution of wealth) use that money to help people retrain and get jobs in different sectors of the economy where they will be better off any ways. With the money people save from buying cheaper goods there will certainly be money left over to spend on other parts of the economy. Take cell phones for example. In the past people simply did not have money to buy a new cell phone every year and pay for the plans that go with them (regardless of whether the technology existed). Yet nowadays you can't find anyone who doesn't do that. One of the biggest reasons the cell phone industry has been able to take off the way it has is because people have more disposable income to purchase goods like that (amongst others). If you're forced to buy expensive locally made products you won't have money left over to buy "luxury items" such as cell phones. Who knows what other industries could be created when people have more money to spend on them?

Answer 3

One of the first actions the US government took in the 1930 was to pass protectionist legislation and other countries followed and as a result world trade dropped dramatically. so it destroyed more jobs that it created and deepened the world wide depression every where. Your analysis of our economy assumes that we can act but there would be no response but that is a fallacy.



PS During Reagan's first term we suffered the worse recession since WWII, although this one may top it, We did not have a strong economy during the the 80's. It was not until the late 90's that unemployment levels fell enough to make it easy to find work. see graph of historical unemployment data at

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedstl/unrate+1947+2009+0+1+1+290+545++0

Answer 4

LOL...our economy was strong? 10.8% unemployment in 1982, but our economy was strong? Savings and loan crisis ring a bell?



Learn some history, please.



Edit: Our economy hasn't been "strong" since before the Vietnam War. We've had boom/bust cycles, but that's all. Reaganomics has had a lot do to with bringing our economy to a point from which it may never fully recover.

Answer 5

Protectionism can only help specific individuals and sectors at the expense of everyone else.

It ALWAYS hurts the economy of the country that does it. No exception is possible.

Answer 6

I agree completely.



Unless America starts manufacturing more, and creating more exports, it will never recover it's former status as the economic centre of the world, and will just enter a long decline.



We can't just keep buying everyone else's stuff, it's unsustainable. We will just become worthless as a country after a while.

Answer 7

Protectionism would result in other countries doing the same to us.

Answer 8

Go look up Globalization and see what that means.

Answer 9

A Communist Revolution would solve all of our economic problems.

we need an isolationist Stalinist Dictatorship

Answer 10

Close the doors, build the wall.

Answer 11

KEEP BUYING AT COMI WALLFART