Weekend Food for Thought: Gloom and Doom Protectionism...the Timeless Tactic

George Mason University Economist Dr. Don Boudreux over at Cafe Hayek cites an alarming article from August 19th at CNNMoney.com .

from that article:

ALARM OVER the continuing flood of imports is spreading from a few zealots in the auto and steel industries to nearly every corner of the economy. Pressure is building, from both business and labor, for Congress to do something. More than 400 trade bills have been introduced this year, many to protect specific industries and bash specific countries. As emotions rise, Congress is toying with ever broader measures, dangling the tantalizing prospect in front of Americans that tough laws -- including high tariffs -- can narrow the trade gap, trim the budget deficit, and best of all, get foreigners to pick up the tab.

Date of article: August 19th 1985....just shy of three months before Marty McFly went back in time to 1955 in Back to the Future.

The alarms for protectionism as some voodoo remedy for the economy are, indeed, nothing new. Adam Smith was arguing against them over 200 years ago and David Riccardo, John Stuart Mill and Frederic Bastiat, among others, after him in the 19th century and countless others in the 20th and into the 21st Century from von Mises and Hayek to Keynes....and from Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard to Paul friggin' Krugman. Indeed, the solid endorsement of free trade and a general sober warning against protectionism (or Merchantilism as it was called during the Classical Period), is one policy that all but a few economists from all modern schools of thought will agree on....much like scientific consensus on the acknowledgment of Global Warming being real.

Yet....and YET, the soap box platform for pushing for these narrow-minded, self-defeating, self-damaging measures to benefit the short term goals of the very, very few at the expense of the short term benefit of everyone else and the mid to long term benefit of everyone and anyone continue to get an audience through the decades and generations and centuries and up to the current day. It truly boggles the mind that such simple matters of basic fact are allowed to be ignored, butchered and misconstrued so tiny interest groups can talk with BIG WORDS and play on the emotions of the unsuspecting masses...again, again and AGAIN.

And it won't end until this inherent bias among people is sent into the history books like so many other defunct beliefs of our ancestors and predecessors.

Knowledge is the cure to the ploys of such dishonest, self-serving and selfish swindlers and preachers of defunct economic alchemy.

As Boudreaux puts it,:

Protectionists are like cockroaches: annoying, ever-present, sneaky, scavenging beasts. (And I think of Cafe Hayek as something of an insecticide.)

.

Amen, doctor, amen.

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's called blowback.

Yes folks do have an inherent bias when their pets and kids die from imported uninspected goods. Humans tend to have hearts and compassion for their children and pets.....zealots that they are.

It doesn't really matter what period it is, classical, neo-classical people don't like to think their food is laced with potential poison.

Call me a cockroach if it makes you feel better.

It is the economy, stupid.

…………

You're missing the point

and ignoring th larger truth so you can dwell on passing problems.

The basis for the protectionist arguments is not safety and quality, it's about protecting selected industries.

………… parent

If you say so.

I always thought it was cause folks didn't want to get you know Mad Cow Disease or poison bread.

But you can call that protecting the cattle industry and the bakers if you like.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

No....

tariffs and subsidies to protect favored industries like steel, auto, agriculture, among others, have nothing to do with "safety"...there motives are protecting their turf so they don't need to adapt. And the rest of society picks up the tab with higher prices.

Real passing problems and dealing with those problems specifically doesn't have to be protectionist. Using them as an excuse to enact protectionist policies that these groups wanted anyway is protectionist and it's bad.

Read the quote from CNN archives and tell me what it's about.

………… parent

You must recognize

..That there are strategic motives to help protect some semblance of a steel industry in this country... steel of course is necessary for ships, planes, and other vehicles critical to the military... During wartime, you can't depend on trade to supply your military, because your enemy might have a monopoly on that commodity you need.  Thus, it would be a hole in our national security picture to allow our domestic steel industry to simply disappear, even if it is the case that China has such a great comparative advantage in most types of steel production that it would dictate that our domestic steel producers do just that.  There are no guarantees that every domestic industry can "adapt" to unadulterated foreign competition.  In some cases, particularly manufacturing, the differences in labor costs and environmental protection costs are just too great to allow any significant domestic production where the playing field is level. 

Just something to think about before labelling every single protectionist measure as "bad"... because there can be considerations other than economics which warrant protectionism in some cases.

………… parent

Skymutt,

NOT protecting these industries does not mean that we won't have them anymore. I think you're carrying these ideas through to unrealistic conclusions. No one has a monopoly on such products nor would they for very long even if they had it for a short while.

What it would mean is more innovation and adaptation from these industries that have to now compete.

New Zealand, a heavy agricultural country, did away with Ag subsidies and their production and methods adapted. They actually export more than before and the land is used more wisely now.

It may not be instinctive but we have to view these matters in historical context. Where would an industry like soda be if Coke had been protected? Wouldn't have Pepsi most likely nor would we have the countless flavors we have...plus...the need for better and better machinery to up production and efficiency wouldn't have been as urgent.

You can never view this process in a snap shot. You have to consider the likely evolution that will take place.

………… parent

NOT protecting these

NOT protecting these industries does not mean that we won't have them anymore.

No, but it could mean that.  If certain critical industries need subsidies to maintain key industrial knowledge within the United States, then it would be prudent to maintain those subsidies.  Does steel fit that profile?  I do not know.  But the New Zealand agriculture example does not mean that all industries will experience similar results.  And the fact is that agriculture is not a key industry to national defense and wouldn't be an industry that I would consider protecting on those grounds anyway.

………… parent

I mostly disagree

I think trade policies should be fair and reasonable. I don't think they should be a form of economic blackmail that favors China over the US.

When you speak of economics, trade, industries, AND government in terms of free market economics, your ideology conveniently forgets that all of these 'things' or institutions are make up of HUMANS. This human element must be a part of the equation. Humans are many things, corruptable, greedy, selfish and protective towards their families.

Henry Paulson has been lobbying China to allow the US finance industry to take over some of its banks, and financial services. China smartly has said, you are crazy. Why would China put up a protectionist wall against US infiltration of some of its banks?

Real passing problems...... !!!!! Excuse me, let me just step over these dead bodies on my way to the bank. In the real world you can not ignore these things.

If you want to rail on and hoist a pitard of blame against 'protectionism' then look to China who foolishly used unsafe means for profit. If China suffers a backlash from this it is the natural order of things. You resist forcing the markets. Well you can not FORCE parents to buy Chinese toys, or Chinese foods that are unsafe.

The tariffs should be fair, not favoring China over the US. That is not competition, it is protecting the jobs in China over protecting jobs in the US. That IS the way people see it. You can call them ignorant cockroaches, but it won't win you any votes for your ideas.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I defer to a great line from the Cafe Hayek comment thread that

I posted the other day:

Let me open by saying that I recognize education in a person, and I recognize skill. You demonstrate both in your ability to give answers to questions that haven’t been asked, as well as your ability to mis-state issues and facts in the casual way that would lead an uninformed reader to assume that you had the correct position.

I could write a 4 page paper on how you did this among other things.

Everything you said is either untrue, overdone, a rebuttal to something I didn't say or condone or completely inaccurate in terms of being an appropriate counter to my position...or all of the above.

And then I'm the bad guy for pointing it out.

………… parent

I can only

sympathize with your fervent passion to change things for the better.

My post addresses more the ideology behind your specifics. Because I think the ideology itself is wrong.

But when you keep citing Cafe Hayek as some fabulist source, it is like me asking you to read some Marixist Socialist paper and saying it's the best ever rebuttal to your off topic reply.

If you want to receive praise for you agenda, then you have to encompass the human element, somehow. The only appeal I see for you, is the Club for Growth's constant harping against taxes, that appeals to the instinct that people want to hold onto their money, that the govt is stealing to give to creeps. People don't need encouragement for that. They need encouragement for how to build a better society.

You consistently ignore that governments are in fact made up of people! Govt leaders are people, humans, with human failings.

People can be corrupted. No matter how ideal of a situation you set up on paper or ideologically. People with power and money, no matter if they are from the left or the right, socialist or communist, or authoritarian or anacharist, people of power are suseptible to corruption. This is why I believe our system of govt has been fairly successful. Because people have to be elected. The system is set up to move slowly. And the constitution incorporates checks and balances.

It's hard to win converts by calling people with all too human instincts cockroaches.

Much easier to say things like, if it weren't for X industries fear of competition for insane profits, and efforts to monopolize the market, the govt would use hemp as a crop for a renewable source of biofuel and paper, savings forests, and wars, see marijuana as a legimate legal way to relax and we could all get high together...... :+)

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I could repeat the quote but I won't....

If the direct content of my thread concerning the reality of free trade isn't enticing enough, I'll give few words on your tangential and shifting remarks...

Reverting to ideology instead of addressing the direct issue is a cop out....

economic reality of free trade?...yuck, no fun, let's go after libertarianism and explain how we need government and that it's made of humans and not perfect and that bad things happen

OK....does it advance the discussion? No. Which may be the point I guess. Better to get sidetracked and bogged down on tangents when the hard issue isn't attractive.

Encompass the Human Element...which human elements??
Reason and reality? I'm there. Playing on people's innate sophisms? No. Truth is for real issues discussion, "truthy" is for politicians. I'll leave sheep herding and strategizing to the to the Roves, Luntz's, Carvilles and Begalas of the world. I'm talking about non-sugar-coated truths that In share with people who follow more than 1% of what's going on in the world.

You consistently ignore that governments are in fact made up of people! Govt leaders are people, humans, with human failings.

Ignore it? It's an underlying premise in my POV.

Nobody's looking for ideal. But knocking down barriers to unequivocal improvement and real progress is always in order....and yes, Free Trade is progress, protectionism is regression.

It's hard to win converts by calling people with all too human instincts cockroaches.

Why? Are you a protectionist? Do think that the POV of those interests in the 1985 CNN article are right, justified and in our best interest?

Would you use "lead in toys" and the like to justify their selfish POV? Are flawed human instincts toward greed and unfair favoritism OK?...not to mention the vulnerability of well-meaning to champion their cause?

Like I've alluded to many times, let's not get sidetracked.

………… parent

Why even have borders then or a military

What are we protecting.

I do not agree that unregulated free trade is progress. There needs to be more balance overall.

Call me a protectionist.

I do not consider it an insult to safeguard my home, or my neighbors home, by supporting workers in my local community instead of paying children pennies a day to make cheap crap for Wal Mart.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Do I need to post that quote again?

But I'll play along:

Yes we need borders and military AND Free Trade.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I do not consider it an insult to safeguard my home, or my neighbors home, by supporting workers in my local community instead of paying children pennies a day to make cheap crap for Wal Mart.

Remember when I said sophisms?

………… parent

Yes!

I know I do not argue as effectively as some, no question. But I am pretty passionate about my views, as are you.

I give you plaudits for being less dismissive in your discussions with me, specifically. So thanks. I wish Hank P hadn't lost that post that would have totally changed your mind, because I am sure I would have agreed with his eloquent rebuttal completely.

I have no problem using humans to defend my ideas. I am mostly pro-human....;+) Humans have a funny way of cooperating when they are provided opportunites and shown respect, instead of being shoved into corners with the cockroaches.... !!

I am not anti-trade, in just think the tariffs need to be fair, and things should be regulated so they are transparent. IE: if food comes from somewhere it should be labeled as from wherever. It could be a selling point if played well. And if 8 years olds are working seven days a weak, twelve hours a day, for mere pennies, so folks can buy something cheap, well I don't agree with that either.

We can trade and have reasonable fair regulations at the same time, that take into account the human facter ie: the consumer, and the worker. That would be a win for everyone.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

this is what I mean....

First of all, what you consider dismissive is often just a calling-out for making detracting comments don't address my points.

Humans have a funny way of cooperating when they are provided opportunites and shown respect,

Indeed, very libertarian of you to say so.

But that whole paragraph about fairness and tariffs and how you apply it is simply not good or lucid.

First of all, I'm against all tariffs. Period. Tariffs between countries, in reality, behave NO DIFFERENTLY in terms of how they affect markets than they would between states. It sounds crazy and extreme but it is empirically true.

Secondly, this makes no sense:

tariffs need to be fair, and things should be regulated so they are transparent. IE: if food comes from somewhere it should be labeled as from wherever.

that's not tariffs, that's simply labeling. Tariffs are when you charge a tax on goods coming from other countries that the government collects as revenue.

And what's "fair"? Fair for whom? Fair for the consumer or the worker? and which workers are you referring to? Are you referring to those few workers protected by tariffs at the expense of everyone else? How about the workers who work in industries that use products from those protected industries whose bosses are forced to pay higher prices to complete their task...thus becoming less competitive against foreign producers who don't have those tariffs and thus have job growth and raises at additional risk? And the consumer who suffers one way or the other and compounded by both?

Safety regulations for their own sake are one thing. And that's fine. Safety as an excuse to promote protectionism and tariffs for their own sake is bad.

………… parent

Well here is a detracter

How realistic is it to think that tariffs will go away? So while you may see you goal as great and good, I think that your goal is unrealistic, as in not gonna happen. So that is pie in the sky, imho.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Which brings us back to the main points

I keep repeating:

1. The point of the diary:

It bears repeating ad infinum how harmful calls for protectionism and tariffs are so people get past their sophistic and biased notions and stop supporting such bad policies with misdirected fear and concern. If man never persisted in attempting to dispel misconceptions and fallacies, we'd still believe a lot of nonsense our predecessors held as sacred truth.

2. Your style in dealing with such matters:

Please stop dodging and twisting with tangential remarks that dance around the issue.

………… parent

...and if I may add to your point about tariffs

and specifically how the US learned its painful lesson, I'd ask them to learn more about America's most destructive tariff ever:  Smoot-Hawley.  The trade war that ensued also makes the point that two wrongs on trade do not make a right. 

http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1921_timeline/smoot_tariff.html

………… parent

Indeed

How fortunate that FDR reversed this destructive protectionism initiated by Republicans under Hoover =)

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Well

I don't care for the point of the dairy at all. I disagree with the premise.

I responded honestly. Sorry if you don't like it.

For you to ask me to repeat a point I disagree with is odd.

The easiest way to avoid this vexation for you and my lack of conversion to your agenda, is for me to avoid commenting on your daires.

Maybe someone else can dance to your tango, but I don't care for the song.

No ill will intended.

Edit: For the record this comment pretty much encompasses
my feelings on the matter... from Autarkh

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

A little perspective...

Chinese imports into the US are 300 billion dollars annually. There was a recent issue with tainted pet food but I'm not aware of any spate of children deaths.

The myth that the FDA is going to protect you is just that, a myth. They have 600 inspectors to inspect not only the domestic food supply but the flood of imports coming into 500 entry points daily. Recently, the FDA wrote a letter to the food manufacters in the US that it's their responsibility to ensure the safety of their product, not the FDA--they can't possibly handle the load. Which is exactly what some of us have been saying on this site.

before you go into a diatribe about you don't trust US companies to regulate themselves, you may as well go into a shell and grow your own food, build your own housing, generate you're own power, etc.

In fact, when it comes to china, the US Fireworks industry is an excellent example of how well self-regulation works. 100% of fireworks are imported from china. At one point, the us fireworks industry became frustrated with the level of quality and failure of safety tests that they banded together as an industry and set up American Fireworks Standards Laboratory (AFSL) in China to test them and work the chinese manufacturers to meet their safety guidelines. Now injury rates among consumer users have decreased dramatically and sales are booming.

No manufacturer has a desire to produce a product that is going to harm the consumer of such product. They won't be in business for long(unless they are protected by the government). The problem with the chinese(and there are issues with respect to the quality of their manufacturing, no doubt) is not that they are evil commies(the nature of their survellience state is another matter) who don't care about the quality of their goods, but that they have grown so fast with really no history or tradition as a capitalist manufacturing base. If more industries--such as the Grocery Industry--followed the lead of the Fireworks industry, I think we have a much more reliable framework--a self-regulatory framework--than we have now.

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Learn to swim.
Moms gonna fix it all soon.
Moms comin round to put it back the way it ought to be.

………… parent

I agree with a Conservative I normally can't stand

Ugh. Phyllis Schlafly, a woman I normally find repugnant, states exactly why we need some of these protections.

I can't speak for many of the protected 'industries' such as steel (though skymutt makes an excellent point above), but keep the Chinese off of my dinner table unless I order take-out. Thanks, but their environmental standards are despicable.

………… parent

I hate when that happens....

but I will take the concensus where I can get it.

There are some strange coalitions these days, including ranchers working with environmentalists to protect the land from developers. Who would have thunk the guns toters would join up with tree huggers to work for the same cause.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I didn't find the backbone of the article well-supported at all.

It would take a couple of generations and many billions of dollars to bring Chinese food up to U.S. health and safety standards.

Considering its importance to the conclusions, I would think it would be given more attention.  If you believed the above, I suppose it would be hard to support free trade w/China.  There's no citation so I guess we'll have to take her work for it.

The other problem with the statement is that it implies that no food producer is conforming to adequate standards.  That's obviously not true. 

I agree with the FDA that it's up to business to ensure product safety so it's not a matter of billions and generations, it's a matter of the business doing its job and shifting demand away from Chinese producers who can't live up to standards.

………… parent

That claim

may be a stretch, but from what I have seen recently as far as recalls, she may have an argument there.

Remember a generation is a loose term, but it is usually considered about fifteen to twenty-five years. I think 20 to 50 years and several billion dollars is an adequate estimation for them to clean up their act, don't you?

This MSNBC/Newsweek article agrees with this assessment and discusses some of the challenges of even contacting the manufacturers; forget the old 'consumer is mad, company goes out of business' model of the 19th century. Much more complicated here.

Also, I'm not a big fan of 'after hundreds or thousands of U.S. citizens die, these companies will go out of business'-type solutions. I would like to prevent these problems through regulations than let the market react to them after the matter.

………… parent

C'mon.....

I might have added "dying in the streets" for effect below, but that's just me.

I'm not a big fan of 'after hundreds or thousands of U.S. citizens die, these companies will go out of business'-type solutions. I would like to prevent these problems through regulations than let the market react to them after the matter.

We've had 6 deaths in Panama linked to bad Chinese exports, and this is before the interernational community really started really scrutinizing Chinese goods.  There's no reason to believe that the situation won't improve markedly.

As your article points out:

Fortunately, history suggests that once Beijing gets serious it will make rapid progress. Many other Asian economies experienced similar teething problems at parallel stages in their development. Tech analyst Dan Heyler of Merrill Lynch in Hong Kong recalls that Taiwan used to have a reputation for slipshod products, before figuring out how to turn things around. "The learning curve begins with reverse engineering to kick-start a lucrative export trade," Heyler explains. The next stage is, "Let's cut corners so we can make more money," he says. "But that doesn't work. China is in the next part of the learning curve, which is [guaranteeing] quality." Like other Asian forerunners, Chinese firms will face a powerful imperative: raise safety and quality standards or get shut out of foreign markets. Still, it may take them longer to adapt than did companies in countries with stronger laws and regulations.

………… parent

I'm glad

you think 6 lives are expendable when with tighter regulations those deaths probably would have been preventable.

So tell me, what is your limit on acceptable deaths?

The quote you provide does suggest China may make progress in cleaning up their act, but this is still a reaction meaning aftert the fact.

Also, the article discusses many roadblocks we will face before they clean up. Should we just patiently wait for the markets to work? Or shall we be pro-active in protecting consumers?

………… parent

Why would I determine an acceptable death level?

So tell me, what is your limit on acceptable deaths?

I don't make determinations for the population at large.  That's up to the consumer (or know better politicians), but if your acceptance level is 6, then you'd better start banning damn near everything (or curl up in a corner.)

 

But personally, my line would be when a stopped feeling safe about the food. Then I'd stop purchasing.

………… parent

Stop purchasing

all food, or just those with products from China? Because food items are not clearly marked with all of the origins of their ingredients.

I find it unfortunate that you are so cavalier about human life. i know that not all deaths are preventable, but I believe we should prevent them when we can.

In addition to those deaths, more than 30 pets died in South Africa and several more in the U.S.

………… parent

Ehh....

I'm fine with labeling, but once you have a problem, the information behind which products and foods are affected is diseminated very quickly.

But we weren't really talking about labeling.

………… parent

There is a

connection between an informed consumer and the tenets you are discussing (the market as the determining factor of safety). I think it is nearly impossible to make informed choices as is, and forcing companies to be candid about their products to inform the consumer would be, gasp, a regulation.

Since that is not a tenable solution at the moment, I favor more drastic steps in taking care of our health.

P.S. I found an article that said 51 deaths were blamed on Chinese cough syrup and 11 more on bad antibiotics. Who knows how many kids have brain damage due to chewing on lead toys. A few years ago, Chinese products killed 100 kids in Haiti.

Europe and S. Korea banned many Chinese-based foods and they seem to be doing fine.

I guess I drastically underestimated the pet deaths. This newspaper article says bad Chinese products are responsible for more than 4000 pet deaths.

………… parent

Why wouldn't a label be a tenable solution?

Since that is not a tenable solution at the moment,

That seems easily implemented (esp relative to bans or tariffs), appropriate to satisfy consumer concerns, and it won't cause permanent damage to the economy.  Win, win, win. 

 

………… parent

Labels

are fine. I never disagreed with them. But they are a regulation, aren't they. (edit): To track down the origin of every ingredient would be very difficult. Remember ow hard it was to track down the e coli spinach that came from California. Now complicate that by about ten when it is just a minor ingredient. Possible, but difficult. (/edit)

We've had bans of countries' products in the past without causing 'permanent damage to the economy'. So people can't get their toothpaste at the dollar store or might have to pay $2 more for their dog food. Big whoop.

………… parent

I would worry about it either....

We've had bans of countries' products in the past without causing 'permanent damage to the economy'. So people can't get their toothpaste at the dollar store or might have to pay $2 more for their dog food. Big whoop.

Probably some great parallels to be found in those past bans.  Big whoop, indeed. 

………… parent

Here

is an article that discusses how hard it is to trace 'outsourced foods' and some of the dangers we face using them.

………… parent

A few more things

The myth that the FDA is going to protect you is just that, a myth. They have 600 inspectors to inspect not only the domestic food supply but the flood of imports coming into 500 entry points daily. Recently, the FDA wrote a letter to the food manufacters in the US that it's their responsibility to ensure the safety of their product, not the FDA--they can't possibly handle the load. Which is exactly what some of us have been saying on this site.

I think you make a good case on why we need more FDA inspectors (and perhaps bans and tariffs also). Your discussion is no argument for getting rid of it; it justs shows that we need more funding or restructuring in this area. Your argument is tantamount to saying we do not have enough social workers so we should not worry about child abuse.

In fact, when it comes to china, the US Fireworks industry is an excellent example of how well self-regulation works. 100% of fireworks are imported from china. At one point, the us fireworks industry became frustrated with the level of quality and failure of safety tests that they banded together as an industry and set up American Fireworks Standards Laboratory (AFSL) in China to test them and work the chinese manufacturers to meet their safety guidelines. Now injury rates among consumer users have decreased dramatically and sales are booming.

I don't know if this is the best example to use, since fireworks are one of the most regulated products in the U.S. (Here is a pdf map of the current federal laws and regualtions.) Further regulations are based on county and city ordinances. Injuries have been going down, not because of the Chinese regulating themselves, but because most of the dangerous ones are banned in all but a few states.

………… parent

She's arguing for ban, not protections

Ugh. Phyllis Schlafly, a woman I normally find repugnant, states exactly why we need some of these protections.

I read the article and she espouses the same opinion of the effectiveness of the FDA that I did, given the sheer volume of trade. Her conclusion, however, is an outright ban, which is just utter nonsense. It's especially nonsense in light of her support for these perpetual overseas wars. She's is not a serious thinker on this matter.

The Fireworks example is a valid example. I said they were failing the safety tests at a rate of 75%, which would pertain to the ability to pass muster with state and federal safety regulations. The Fireworks industry formed the AFSL and testing lab in China to improve the quality and safety of the product. It wasn't a case of the chinese regulating themselves per se, it's more of a case of the American companies self-regulating themselves.

I've been taking supplements for years, and since I suppose most of them originate from china one way or another, I suppose it's a miracle i'm still standing and haven't dropped dead yet. The one thing I do know, however, if that we have a trade policy contingent on the trading partner meeting the same environmental and labor practices of the United States, that means essentially no trade, and, in such an event, I can say most assuredly that I would be standing in the soup line wishing I was dead.

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Learn to swim.
Moms gonna fix it all soon.
Moms comin round to put it back the way it ought to be.

………… parent

I'll skip the

dramatics about the equal standards for environmental and labor practices and just say that as far as the ban, she is referring to just food. Bans are a form of protectionism (in reference to your title).

I see you do not disagree that fireworks are one of the most regulated products, so I still don't see the validity of your example, but I guess we can agree to disagree here.

………… parent

John,

Here's part II where Friedman discusses Capitalism and Freedom

 As true today as it was 50 years ago.....

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/09/friedman_on_cap_1.html

…………

Listened to it.

I followed up part one with that one.

Russ Roberts has a great thing going on over there and the Library for Economics and Liberty is a treasure trove of excellent material.

Look up Shales (within the last months). She discusses her new book "The Forgotten Man" about the Great Depression.

Rivals the Friedman interview in terms of fascinating information.

………… parent

Thanks for the tip (nm)

nm

………… parent

Protectionist sentiment among the politicians is mainly lip

service these days...

I watched that joke of a AFL-CIO democratic debate and every presidential candidate up there was lying through their teeth. None of them, if they got elected, would instigate a trade war with china, have the chinese dump a trillion dollars of US treasury securities on the market, thus collpasing the dollar, watch the the largest US employer slash jobs, all the while having an unaccomodating fed--that is, unless they wish to be regarded by posterity as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century.

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Learn to swim.
Moms gonna fix it all soon.
Moms comin round to put it back the way it ought to be.

…………

very, very true.

excellent post above on the FDA BTW. If the POV you spoke against wasn't so harmful, it would be laughable.

The paradox is mind boggling. The government delivers so much less than many think in terms of the advertised benefits attributed to it...while the private sector is SO MUCH MORE responsible for these matters than many give it credit for. And they do it everyday and many hardly notice...or care.

Millions of products and services are smoothly exchanging hands, getting us through the day and improving our quality of life everyday...with very few hiccups...and those hiccups are pounded into our minds when they do happen (Don't you worry!). But politicians and government agencies, like the FDA as you mention, do comparatively very little and don't even do it as well and they treated with such reverence. We're SOOOOO lucky to have you have, FDA!!

I once read a snide libertarian comment that this is nothing new. In medieval times, everyone loved the King and Queen, while they hated the artisans and merchants. The king did very little good for them yet they were revered for so many things. The artisans, masons, smiths and merchants, OTOH, were mistrusted and frowned on as greedy opportunists even though they sold everyone their needed bread, cheese, clothing, tools among other needed products and services...like buildings.

It's really unfair when you think about. Kinda like Cinderella getting the shaft while those worthless step sisters got treated like royalty.

But. yes...the Dems are pandering. They'll throw a few lollipops on these matters and fight meaningful reform...but they won't go as far as to give the base elements like the AFL-CIO everything they want. They know better...even though they don't show it.

………… parent

One aspect of that debate that made news

was the elderly gentlemen who lost his health care for himself and his wife. I thought John Edwards was going to levitate off the stage in a moment rapturous emotion when he gave the man a standing ovation.

But it came out in an interview the next day the elderly man gave on Hardball that his union had bargained away higher wages in exchange for lifetime health insurance coverage, which I find to be a foolish gamble. It's the screwed up tax code that encourages untaxed compensation in the form of health and pension benefits, which if find not to be especially rational if there were no tax on labor.

Of course, the subtext of all that emotion is that if we had "fair trade," that company would still be around to make good on it's promised benefits. I find that obvious bit of political hot air particularly odious.

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Learn to swim.
Moms gonna fix it all soon.
Moms comin round to put it back the way it ought to be.

………… parent

Though the righteous anger and frustration behind nativist...

...critiques of free trade are very real—and justified—they’re incomplete and misdirected. There’s a far stronger case to be made against the substantive consequences of these policies, and the hypocritical actions veiled by triumphal neoliberal rhetoric.

Chinese products are not unsafe because those “evil Chinamen” are out to poison us, but because the corporate system of production maximizes profit precisely by externalizing costs. Safety is an ancillary concern to be shirked whenever one can get away with it. The WHOLE POINT of moving industries to China is to avoid the expensive labor of a somewhat empowered working class, minimal standards of environmental responsibility and workplace safety, and, yes, shameless, untempered greed.

Are we genuinely surprised by the consequences?

"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell

…………

No, not surprised!

If only more folks would link these two, not the evil Chinamen, but the corporate system of production that externalizes costs. Great point!

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Nicely put. -nt.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent