The United States experienced the most growth when it applied restrictive tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers.
China and Japan were only able to out-compete the United States and produce competitive goods because they also applied barriers to trade.
Japan has become noncompetitive when it adopted the economic policies recommended so strongly by the Americans.
 |
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
Protectionism only works when you have a national industry. Trade restrictions didn't work in Argentina, or the American South.
By your "logic" Russia must be flourishing currently as no one trades with her. And Nazi Germany should have only benefitted from trade blockade too.
It doesn't work anywhere. It can only funnel resources to some crooked producers at the cost of the whole national economy.
>By your "logic" Russia must be flourishing currently as no one trades with her. And Nazi Germany should have only benefitted from trade blockade too.
Russia has only 300 banks and had only one bank when it was still the Soviet Union. The United States has 4500 banks and used to have over 20,000 banks.
Also, Russia is still trading.
https://www.reuters.com/business/trade-with-china-booms-some-russian-companies-are-flourishing-2024-03-13/
Also also, the idea isn't to stop trading altogether. Japan and China, my examples, traded heavily during their economic boom, and so did the US.
nta but you might be moronic
>It doesn't work anywhere. It can only funnel resources to some crooked producers at the cost of the whole national economy.
That's ironic, because that's exactly what "free trade" entails for nations who traded with England/The British Empire
Get over it; Hitler wanted autarky (and slavery) because his socialist economy was so inefficient that Germany just couldn't _afford_ to buy raw fricking materials (and grains kek). His stock of _strategic materials_ was - in some cases - few weeks worth before the war.
The solution isn't reinventing the "economy" of ancient Rome, but modernizing it. Your "sources" are pure propaganda bullshit comparable with astrology btw; you might as well claim that the USA was developing _because_ people were using horse wagons instead of cars back then.
British protectionism had absolutely nothing to do with hitler, it was in effect long before he was born. They also reintroduced some protectionist measures between the wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Duties_Act_1932
Less trade restrictions means less harm. More trade restrictions means more harm. For _both_ sides of a prevented exchange mind you. If USA doesn't trade with Cuba then American and Cuban citizens suffer exactly the same; but for Cubans it means they starve and don't have gasoline while Americans are rich enough that they don't even notice it. Wealthier countries (or economic blocks, like EU vs Russia - or, historically, the British Empire) can bully around weaker countries that way (at the - relatively small - cost of their own citizenry!) but you must be out of your mind to propose it as a way of developing one's own economy.
I can see your huge nose from here.
You wehraboos have it good.
>How to win each and every discussion you'll ever have in life by just saying a single word!
This reminds me of a certain famous Nazi general.
Was this whole babbling about joos just an excuse to find some slave labor and rob blind a substantial part of Euro-Asian population? To make their failed ethno-state project last a few years longer?
a lot of Russian businesses have benefitted from not having international competition
Russians generally give a lot less of a frick about muh sanctions than americans think they do
Black person, I know that _specific firms_ benefit from trade restrictions (that's why local politicians often shill it - they get bribes from _specific firms_), but ALL fricking Russians (all fricking Russian economy) hurts by it. Ask Cubans. And keep your stories straight.
>but ALL fricking Russians (all fricking Russian economy) hurts by it.
Disproven by China
And the US, and Japan, and even Britain
define growth. I don't think you can contribute trade restrictions to the westward expansion of the USA.
If trade makes people poorer, why not prevent all of it? Total isolationism ala North Korea should logically result in the best economic growth.
It says "home industries" in the OP. Maybe try reading before you reply, or go back to facebook
With isolationism, all industries become home industries.
>If trade makes people poorer, why not prevent all of it?
Trade makes people poorer in some cases, and richer in other cases. I don't know why it always has to be black and white with liberal shills. If every business is dying because of foreign competition, you're necessarily going to become poorer, because wealth comes from production. This is why it makes perfect sense to ensure that productive jobs keep existing in your nation.
>Trade makes people poorer in some cases, and richer in other cases.
As you mentioned yourself, wealth comes from productivity. Productive industries will thrive in a free market. The only thing preventing trade would do is decrease competitiveness and therefore productivity.
You're confusing productivity and production. You can have a domestic industry that has a lower productivity than a foreign one, that gets outcompeted and has to shut down, but that doesn't mean that the industry wasn't productive. It just means that, in a free market, it wasn't productive enough to compete and survive. But the fact is that when it dies, production in the country drops, and so does its wealth. Even more wealth leaves the country as they now pay to import this product from somewhere else.
You're forgetting the money saved by importing the cheaper, functionally-identical product, which gets reinvested elsewhere. Protectionism is harmful in the long run because it allows market inefficiencies to artificially continue existing and you have zombie industries shambling along being propped up by gibs and rent-seeking behavior.
>You're forgetting the money saved by importing the cheaper, functionally-identical product, which gets reinvested elsewhere.
This is wishful thinking. A consumer could save money by importing and then spend the saved money on importing something else.
>Protectionism is harmful in the long run because it allows market inefficiencies to artificially continue existing and you have zombie industries shambling along being propped up by gibs and rent-seeking behavior.
Now you're confusing protectionism with subsidies. You can absolutely have an economics policy that favours protectionism without necessarily having a zombie economy that survives on corporate welfare. Just because some societies fail at implementing protectionism doesn't mean that it's inherently bad. When used properly, it's primarily a tool to give your own businesses a competitive edge against foreign businesses, which in turn means that they can POTENTIALLY invest that money and become more productive. I'm not saying that this happens every time, but at least it CAN happen. Meanwhile, a business that goes bankrupt is just lost, with no possibility of improving itself.
It depends on what you want for your country. The ideal situation for a country is to be completely self-sufficient so it doesn't have to rely on anyone to survive, while not falling behind technologically, economically, politically, so on. The thing is, due to opportunity cost and limited resources such as time, manpower, material, so on, this is not possible. The need for trade arises, so that all parties get the most bang for their buck so to speak. Protectionism seems like a good idea because it promotes self-sufficiency, and sometimes this is somewhat of a good thing, especially when young industries need to grow so that they become competitive on the market, something China did years ago. But the cost of self-sufficiency is: productivity becomes worse as time goes on due to lack of exposure to competition, and waste of resources that could properly be used if there were proper market forces. Look at the countries which have the least amount of trade: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, any sanctioned country gets screwed because everything is limited. Sure, they don't rely on foreign trade as much and if something happens in the globalized world, it doesn't affect them as much. Their day-to-day lives aren't as good.
Protectionism is useful in a small number of cases, and it is better to be exposed to the full force of the market lest your country falls behind and then your country becomes less competitive. A better way to practice protectionism is for the state to fund private companies so they get an edge over their competitors and have a greater market share, but that's another topic.