History of Protectionism

>>2065645
>inb4 it's doesn't

>>2065645
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States

>>2065645
Free trade would be best when government is cutting into my private profits. When I'm going broke it's the government's job to bail me out at the expense of general society.

t. finance pro

>>2065677
What

>Protectionism in the United States refers to protectionist economic policy that erected tariff and other barriers to trade with other nations. This policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. It attempted to restrain imports to protect Northern industries. It was opposed by Southern states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports. Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means, allegedly to ensure fair competition between imported goods and local goods. Currently the US is the most protectionist country which has introduced the most protectionist measures. According to Global Trade Alert the US has adopted nearly 800 protectionist measures since the Global Economic Crisis in 2008.[1][2][3]

Really makes you think

>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,” said President William McKinley. “[Free trade] destroys the dignity and independence of American labor… It will take away from the people of this country who work for a living— and the majority of them live by the sweat of their faces— it will take from them heart and home and hope. It will be self-destruction.”

>President McKinley rejected the “cheaper is better” argument outright: “They [free traders] say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest.’ That is one of their maxims… 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.”

"free trade" friendly countries are always unabashed shitholes

really makes you stink

>"They say, if you had not the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or whether it is dear depends on what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer."

>"The protective tariff policy of the Republicans… has made the lives of the masses of our countrymen sweeter and brighter, and has entered the homes of America carrying comfort and cheer and courage. It gives a premium to human energy, and awakens the noblest aspiration in the breasts of men. Our own experience shows that it is the best for our citizenship and our civilization and that it opens up a higher and better destiny for our people."[7]

Any thoughts?

>>2065645
American industry is shit so they need to rig the system

see for example the automobile.

Economic Centrism >>> Gommies, Ancaps and any other kind of shit. The US pretty much proves this. Also, when you're a global superpower, you have the prerogative to ask other cunts to have "free" economies while somewhat protecting yours.

>>2065712
>"free trade" friendly countries are always unabashed shitholes

But that's wrong?

>>2065747
Actually US industry is the most productive in the world

>>2065762
?

>>2065762
Which developed nation is truly free trade and non-protectionist?

>>2065645
Its just gamesmanship.

You want free trade when you're trying to export, protectionism when you're importing. You want to sell for the most profit and buy for the least cost.

>>2065821
Exactly

>>2065677
pretty much this

>>2065645
19th century England was free trade as fuck and lost all of their money

19th century America only said they supported free trade and got all the money

>>2065821
The government would tax exports if voters let it.

All that is happening is voters have a more difficult time understanding how protectionism hurts them.

File: image.jpg (147KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1136x640px

>>2065883
Pic related

Also, the UK only began to have lower tariffs than France in the late 1800's. Before that the UK tariffs were really high

>>2065918
this is one of those "don't go extreme" deals

if you are too into protectionism your economy gets complacent and stagnates and everyone else tries to protect as well

be too into free-trade and other economies are built up on your expense

>>2065928
But the US grew the fastest in its history when it was extremely protectionist?

It was literally the most protectionist major nation from 1870-1945.

I'm not saying cause ---> effect

But there's nothing empirical about some golden mean in protextionism

>>2065957
If you're a major economic player, you want to be protectionist. Use your muscle to crush your smaller, weaker opposition. If you're tiny, you want free trade so your businesses can out-compete the big guys.

It's just like monopolies vs upstarts. The monopoly wants to use its greater market share and political leverage to bias competition. The upstart wants a fair competition because they know the monopoly will be bad at it.

>>2065981
Free trade in small undeveloped countries almost always means "primarization" of the the economy.

>>2065957
yeah but there was a reason it stopped being protectionist.

starts with a G

>>2066009
gJews?

By buying a pair of domestically manufactured shoes I'm keeping a fellow American employed.

But if I buy shittier shoes from China I'm "freeing up" the local's shoemaker's from making shoes and thus he can focus on other things. But what if the shoemaker has nothing else, or knows nothing else?

>>2066016
The economy goes from full employment equilibrium point to another full employment equilibrium point automatically. What are you, some kind of dirty keynesian?

>>2065645
Because most of ecomomical doctrines - traps for idiots. Normal countries with strong economics force open markets, with weak one - protect themselves. All other - for idiots.

>>2066009
Gooks?

>>2066029
>keynesian economics
>changing Great Depression America into 1950s America

other economic theorist are mad because they can't produce actual historical results quite like it.

>>2065677
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses

>>2066016
>But what if the shoemaker has nothing else, or knows nothing else?
That is literally NOT a question anyone in economics raises. What the fuck.

>>2065687
>US is the most protectionist state
Adam Smith is rolling in his grave :^(

>only knowing how to make shoes

It's not only a dream, it's my life.

>>2066320
It is

>>2066328
Wut

>>2066588
Right. Not everyone communicates to have arguments on here. I'm just saying protectionism is something LTV proponents argued across the board against, all the way up to Mill.

>>2066588
Nothing you can really do about it. It also pretty much pulls up the ladder of development with Agriculture.

>>2065712
Hong Kong? Singapore?

>>2066671
Protectionism? Some economists would argue it hurts productivity.

Von Mises and those who preach his message wouldn't, but his ideas are solely consistent with the idea of a monopoly on interest.

>>2066006
For small undeveloped countries it's basically like
stripping yourself, baring your asshole and inviting any body to fuck you. You'll get people alright taking up your offer but granted it's the type of people who are willing to solicit sex from a nude man flashing his tight asshole in public.

File: Capture.png (94KB, 516x349px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 516x349px

>>2066681
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/322361469672160172/pdf/123510v20PUB0r00Box371943B00PUBLIC0.pdf

>>2065957
>But the US grew the fastest in its history when it was extremely protectionist?
No? The US experienced (and theoretically caused) the worst economic crisis in history at the peak of its protectionism.

>>2066662
I know I was just confirming what you said

>>2066671
Explain? You mean how we fuck over African agriculture?

>>2065645
But mises said that USA needed foreign capital to build their railroads in the beginning.

South American countries are very protectionist and they are shit. Chile is more liberal and has the second highest HDI.

>>2066739
[Citation needed]

>>2066743
>South American countries are very protectionist and they are shit.
But is that because of the protectionism or because they are culturally fucked?

>Chile is more liberal and has the second highest HDI.
It also has 30% of GDP in exported copper/nickel/gold.
Maybe the reality is that some types on "protectionist" policies are more effective in certain countries and time periods and levels of development than others?

>>2066758
Do you seriously not know the causes of the Depression and the reactions which just furthered the problem? Are you still in High School?

>>2066774
Market speculation. Had nothing to do with protectionism.

>>2066740
Just developing world agriculture.

>>2066797
Here take these seeds we designed in a laboratory that cause the people who eat the food to have birth defects.

Thank you globalization.

>>2066794
>and the reactions which just furthered the problem
>Had nothing to do with protectionism
You can't be serious. Are you seriously implying that the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, and the reactionary tarriffs, were not protectionism? Are you implying that they did not worsen the Depression? Because that's extremely counterfactual.

>>2066743
Paraguay is basically the equivalent of a tax free zone and it's one of the worst shitholes.
Protectionism done well is good, protectionism done badly is bad.

>>2066794
Market speculation was caused from the monopolised wealth caused by protectionism you fucking moron

>>2066801
>he posted an unfalsifiable hypothesis

>>2066802
I am not the man you were replying to, nor do I know too much about that act. -But- the initial cause was certainly not protectionist related.

>>2066671
>It also pretty much pulls up the ladder of development with Agriculture.
Yeah I know at least the EU used to be really shitty about it.
Protectionism our way for agriculture with african countries so Manuel and Pierre can keep their jobs on the farm.
That way their industry funded by subsidies can thrive.
They produce too much though, so to not spoil the goods they get dumped for low prices in african markets with little protectionism and wipe out the potential for their agriculture to grow.

>>2066804
>monopolized wealth
>implying protectionist policies create any sort of monopoly

From the transition of resources into the 20th century, I would like you to explain to me what exactly would be the explicitly beneficial effects of protectionist procedures through the twentieth century as the nation drifted away from the gold-exchange standard

Truly, the application of protectionist policies may harm one's stance in trade internationally because their productivity is not going to be spurred by increased sales or ventures for their capital to drift into locally.

Incredibly, it seems the only benefit to protectionist policies would be the retaining of gold in the assets of a central bank of a country, but many economists doubt the spurious claim that protectionist policies create some sort of monopoly on trade.

>>2066816
ACKCHUALLY, that's not (entirely) true and Keynesians would disagree with your statement. Keynesians say that the lack of monetary flow (the largest factor in causing the Depression to Keynesians) was partially caused by increased prices due to the tariffs imposed in the wake of WWI.

>>2066769
I think the problem is that in here people love government. Many people want smaller government but populists always take advantage of the situation to argue for more government. Populist bullshit to have state companies. Say that privatization is evil. We're so far left that everyone from your Democrats would be right wing in here.

Every time we try to be more liberal we get better but they find a way to demonize it. I think we need more capitalism.

>>2066807
It's unfalsifiable because its right.

It's something you don't want to touch because it is explicitly not tremendously statistically theoretical and touches on the philosophy of the whole factor of incessant technological 'improvements' in agriculture.

>>2066871
>It's unfalsifiable because its right

Sorry, I'm not a creationist.

>>2066871
>because its right
Then why do the vast majority of studies say otherwise? Why have the largest studies that say it is true been debunked?

>>2066850
It was entirely speculative. Listen to this man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEc7sE7psJA

>>2066884
>It was entirely speculative
That's counter to the historiography.

>>2066884
A few years later fisher abandoned mainstream economics and went on to create a debt deflation theory of the crisis that is actually pretty good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation#Fisher.27s_formulation_.281933.29

File: U.S._Public_and_Private_Debt_as_a_%_of_GDP.jpg (68KB, 467x372px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 467x372px

>>2066891
>>2066896
Depends who you read.

>>2066883
Because those studies want money from MONSANTO

>>2066902
Okay, allow me to rephrase. It's counter to the COMMON historiography.

File: 1356206854832.jpg (112KB, 573x493px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 573x493px

>>2066904
>the evidence of X isn't there because Y
>then why do you believe in X at all
>Y shill detected

>>2066911
Study bias comes in many forms.Corporations will certainly pay money to influence findings and even support realms of academia and industrial progress so it suits their interests. Do you doubt this? Why don't you post a study that refuted these claims then we'll talk.

>>2065645
All that shit started with the Truman Doktrims

Their plan was to stop interacting in eu, therefore eu would stop with fucking shit up in south america

Appereantly the soviets thought it would be cool to spread communism and truman brought up the idea of his containment politic.

This was pretty much the turning point for americas modern politics.

>>2066907
It's really not. A lack of sufficient market switches and overexpanded credit were what exacerbated the depression, really.

Anyone claiming protectionism is a retard.

>>2066925
>Why don't you post a study that refuted these claims

Because you just said that you don't believe studies.

Besides that, I don't come to 4chan to change people's minds, I come here to find stupid faggots and make fun of them.

You are one such individual, and there is a carefully refined etiquette that must now be observed.

>>2066936
So you lose. Welcome to 4chan.

As a non-american if America is protectionist my whole life is a lie.

>>2066946
It is, and it might matter foundationally, but really it just ends up hurting the technological progress of the companies that instills the protectionist policies in the long run.

>>2066935
>were what exacerbated the depression, really.
You keep doing the thing that's counter to the historiography. The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff and the reactionary tarriffs caused by it are commonly stated as worsening the depression to the point of non-recovery due to the fact it completely killed international trade and reduced any remaining capital flow to nothing.

The only retard is the person claiming that protectionism had nothing to do with the Depression, i.e. you.

>>2065645
>How come the USA always demands free trade when it is one of the most protectionist developed nations?

Hypocrisy.

>>2066959
I never disputed that either, but certainly the cause, as indicated, was not caused by protectionist policies. That is ridiculous.

>>2066946
It has dozens of import restrictions and duties as you well know.

Through systems of taxation you could also say the US has disguised export subsidies.

>>2065645
Number of protectionist laws does not necessarily correlate with severity of protectionism. A nation can have one single law barring all imports, for example. This graph is more of a consequence of the long and storied history of American involvement in global trade than anything else.

>>2066802
The Smoot tariff had practically nothing to do with the continuation of the great depression. This liberal claim has been disproven multiple times

>>2066850
Higher prices (inflation) were exactly what Keynes wanted in a depression

>>2066946
It is the most protectionist major developed nation

Especially pre 1945.

>>2067284
But besides that it's very economically liberal, right?

>>2066959
>The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff and the reactionary tarriffs caused by it are commonly stated as worsening the depression to the point of non-recovery
[Citation needed]

The tariffs only raised the rates from 38% to 45%.

>>2067176
>Number of protectionist laws does not necessarily correlate with severity of protectionism.

That wasn't what the claim made was solely based on. Actual studies that look at the severity show that the US is the most protectionist major economy.

>>2067290
About average in the OECD.

For example, 50% of profits in the US went to the top 100 companies last year.

>>2067312
Not if people like Thomas Piketty have their way with it. I was reading an article in The Guardian not too long ago, and he was prescribing all sorts of different subsidies on exportation. WHY.JPG

>>2067320
>Actual studies
Post them. Actual peer reviewed academic ones not bullshit from think tanks like Cato or Global Trade Alert.

>>2067360
I'm simply saying that the tariff of 1930 barely raised the rates.

>>2067360
Is Piketty french for "satan"?

>>2067518
Hmmmm I wonder

>>2065645

protectionism isnt isolationism

>>2067715
Protectionist policies are economic policies. Isolationism relates more to political science...

>>2067715
What?

>>2067516
It cut American exports by half. Looking just at the tariff percentage and not the effects of it is retarded.

File: Milton-Friedman.jpg (90KB, 802x1165px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 802x1165px

>>2065645
We need freer markets and deregulation as soon as possible or we risk another 2008 financial crisis due to Keynesian/socialist/protectionist policies.

>>2065787

Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland. These are the most free trade and non-protectionist countries in the world.

>>2068968
>exports fell during great depression

Ahhh surely it was solely the effect of the minor tariff rise!

>the effect
You have no proof that it was the causal mechanism

>>2068968
>a tariff cut exports in half

Hmmmmmmm that's some fine logic there

>>2069003
rich countries, but are they developed?

>>2068968
>However, in 1933, 63% of all imports were never taxed which the "dutiable tariff rate" does not reflect. The "free and dutiable rate" in 1929 was 13.5% and peaked under Smoot-Hawley in 1933 at 19.8% which is significantly below the 29.7% "free and dutiable rate" that the United States averaged from 1821 until 1900.[20]

>Using panel data estimates of export and import equations for 17 countries, Jakob B. Madsen (2002) estimated the effects of increasing tariff and non-tariff trade barriers on worldwide trade during the period 1929-1932. He concluded that real international trade contracted somewhere around 33% overall. His estimates of the impact of various factors included about 14% because of declining GNP in each country, 8% because of increases in tariff rates, 5% because of deflation-induced tariff increases, and 6% because of the imposition of non-tariff barriers.

>>2069003
>Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland.
>These are the most free trade and non-protectionist countries in the world.
Funny you mention these considering from about 1960-1990 they were the most protectionist and interventionist trading economies in the world.

Also
>2 city-states benefiting off refugee Chinese money
>1 tiny nation that is well-known as the money laundering capitol of Europe

Great examples!

this >>2068979
to offset the dotcom bubble we created the housing bubble, then when that bubble burst we dropped rates to 0 and are now creating an economic wide global bubble which Trump is about to pop

>>2068979
I would love to see it, just to watch USA falling faster.

But Trumpo knows about bussiness and money and he gets that it would be bad for the USA.

>>2068979
>Keynesian/socialist/ policies caused the 2008 recession

Am I being memed right now?

>>2069894
Panama is another tax heaven. They are doing good for LA standars. But they dont have any technology or industry of their own.

>>2069896
If you're going to stipulate that we're manufacturing another bubble more justification is needed than "hurr low interest rates".

>>2069915
He obviously views the economic philosophy of John Maynard Keynes and Socialism for causing the 2008 real estate bubble.

There's nothing batshit crazy about that.

Except everything. No, it just doesn't even make sense.

>>2069901
>but Trump knows about business

Lol if he removes Dodd-Frank then that won't matter at all

>>2069915
Yes it's sarcasm

>>2069918
People are confusing free trade/liberalization --> wealth
with parasitism --> wealth

Furthermore, free-traders have made the definition of "free-trade" as inherently connected to more prosperous nations, not because they are free trade but because they are also prosperous.

Finally, the meme has become so widespread that it actually affects investor sentiment and has real effects.
Just saying "protectionism" hurts your economy now, even though there is no objective reason why it is a negative to growth.

>>2069950
>Just saying "protectionism" hurts your economy now, even though there is no objective reason why it is a negative to growth
>I have not read any free market proponents in my life

>>2069950
Essentially, most of modern economics is just a self-perpetuating meme.

Through the 1700's-1970's , protectionist nations grew faster than "free trade" nations. It's unequivocal.

Doesn't make it the correct policy now though. The self-perpetuating meme has real consequences.

File: image.jpg (188KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1136x640px

>>2069962
Not an argument.

The US had the highest applied tariff rate in the world until 1946.

>>2069962
>muh free market

>>2066009
Gold?

>>2069894
Hong Kong was never protectionist or interventionist

>>2070024
>muh free market
This expression is what is uttered by your average statecuck when confronted by the damaging effect of their policies.

>>2066902
Why did recessions become less frequent and weaker after the 30s?

File: IMG_0216.jpg (76KB, 814x573px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 814x573px

1) Muhammad Tahir & Dr. Dk Hajah Norulazidah Binti Pg Haji Omar Ali, Trade Openness and Economic Growth: A Review of the Literature (2014). "Overall, this paper concludes that the available literature provides an affirmative answer to the question whether or not trade openness causes economic growth": http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/36581/20566

2) Jean-Jacques Hallaert, A History of Empirical Literature on the Relationship Between Trade and Growth (2006). "Because international trade theory has not provided an unambiguous prediction on the impact of trade on growth, much of the focus has been on empirical analysis, the weight of which suggests that trade positively affects growth. Case studies point to a positive impact, but are difficult to generalize. More recent empirical studies have focused on cross-country and panel regressions and, although their methods can be criticized, they usually suggest that trade openness strongly enhances economic performance. In addition, industry and firm-level research also show that openness contributes to growth through a positive impact on exports and productivity": http://www.cairn.info/revue-mondes-en-developpement-2006-3-page-63.htm

3) Andrew Berg and Anne Krueger, Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey (2003). "Evidence from a variety of sources (cross-country and panel growth regressions, industry and firm-level research, and case studies) supports the view that trade openness contributes greatly to growth": https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/wp0330.pdf

>>2070227
I don't think anybody disputes that orthodox economics strongly favors free trade.

>>2070069
>Hong Kong was never protectionist
https://books.google.com/books?id=7OzvBMP-6B8C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=hong+kong.protectionism+1970&source=bl&ots=vAvCreEGmj&sig=tAtvcLvvzjC-akSVD5bdNTeUQZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi86NuXn-rQAhVFCMAKHUb6CogQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=hong%20kong.protectionism%201970&f=false

>>2070227
>freer trade = free trade
"No"

>>2065645
It doesn't.

>>2070264
[Citation needed]

Because free trade is a meme designed to sucker other countries out of their wealth. The US and West in general are mercantilist, and when we haven't been it's been disastrous.

Ironically is my name is Adam Smith.

>>2070236
Yeah, but orthodox economics is the only kind of economics that should be taken seriously, so...

>>2070302
I disagree, especially when it comes to development economics.

>>2070312
So, is there any empirical evidence that supports the view that trade openness has harmful aggregate effects on the economy?

I mean, lets be honest. We've never really had free trade. Back when Adam Smith wrote WoN, protectionist policies were tremendously popular with nations. It seems the free market is just something in a perfect world that may never exist with regards to global trade because of politicians and monies interests.

>>2067312

>A 7% difference
>"Only"

>>2070332
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_financial_crisis

>>2071331
>happened after several decades of breakneck economic growth
>countries that suffered from it still rich as fuck

nice try

>>2070753
Look>>2069890

The real change between 1929 and 1930 was only 5-7%. That's extremely minor relative to the previous few decades.

>>2071338
>countries that suffered from it still rich as fuck
>Indonesia

Also, that wasn't the terms of your question.

>>2071351
>implying Indonesia was rich before 1997

you're grasping at very thin straws here

>>2071355
>goalposts

>>2071331
And how exactly was this crisis caused by trade openness?

>>2071556
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_money

>le trade is only goods meme

>>2065712
Give on example of this

>>2071355
Compared to where they were when Suharto took power in '65, yes.

All of my yes.

>>2065645
>japan that low
something smells fishy

>>2069889
Uh... Yes? They are some of the most developed countries in the world by any metric

>>2071831
Everything smelled fishy back in the 80s