Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Protectionism is a dangerous road to walk - remember the Thirties

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 10:28 PM
Original message
Protectionism is a dangerous road to walk - remember the Thirties
One lesson policymakers have learned from the past is that protectionism is dangerous. But the big question is whether their good intentions will be enough to prevent a pulling up of national drawbridges. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act has been hovering like a spectre over the meeting of the world's economic elite at Davos; in the 1930s, the US raised tariffs on thousands of goods, which exacerbated the Great Depression and arguably paved the way to the Second World War.

It's an accepted truth that protectionism, with countries implementing measures to safeguard their own domestic businesses and workers, can turn a recession into a depression. The problem is that, from Barack Obama downwards, political leaders are confronting a global crisis, but have only national tools at their disposal to fight it. And however much they believe in free trade, they are accountable to voters at a national level, who want to see their leaders putting domestic interests first. The risk is that politicians, however well intentioned, will find it impossible not to succumb to nationalist and protectionist rhetoric.

This is not idle, chin-scratching speculation. A million French workers staged a one-day strike on "Jeudi Noir"; there have been demonstrations in Greece and Latvia; in the UK, wildcat strikes spread from Lincolnshire to Wales and the north-east over the arrival of foreign workers at the Lindsey oil refinery, near Grimsby. In a sinister overtone, the far-right British National Party is sounding jubilant.

There is no easy answer to the threat of protectionism; the only consolation is that so far, governments are making the right kind of noises and no one has done anything really provocative. It would be a brave person who is prepared to bet on that continuing, since the temptations to put immediate self-interest over trust are both strong and persistent. What the 1930s should have taught us, though, is that it is worth prioritising the greater good, because the alternative is unthinkable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/01/global-economy-economics-protectionism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh I see the corporate tools are weighing in. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Then why do other countries practice it against USA made goods
Ya I bet they a worried to death about it

Since Korea imports 100s of 1000s of cars to the USA - but only allows 5000 USA made cars to enter the country per year

Since China enjoys a 2% tarrif on goods it exports to the USA - Yet charges 20% - 40% tarrifs on USA made goods attempting to enter the country

WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Augdog20 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. let's use term properly
It's "Korea exports 100s of ...."
exports means ships out
imports means ships in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. There is a difference between "protectionism"
and expecting our trading partners to hold up their end of agreements. When we get screwed we should respond in kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angrycarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. We've thrown open the doors to too many lopsided deals.
Trade deals have been designed to increase trade but to also cut the legs out from under labor unions in this country. No more should we have to compete directly with third world slave labor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Some things are worth protecting.
The US middle class is one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Whadda crocka chickenshit bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
7. Didn't read the article

but really tired of taking it up the ass in a non-consensual way from our "partners".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. If we were the only country in the world would intra-region trade give us good economy?
Edited on Sun Feb-01-09 02:29 PM by terisan

From which regions of the world would we have to get natural resources we no not possess?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. 100% WRONG
This has been debunked many times. Greed exacerbated the Great Depression. Complete out of control speculative stock and real estate bubbles burst and caused the Great Depression.

What "exacerbated" the Great Depression was Herbert Hoover's policies of balanced budgets and refusal to put the government to work employing people when private industry was unable.

Then again in the mid 1930's, FDR succumbed to rethuglican pressure and started scaling back government programs and once again started reaching for the mythical "balanced budget" solution which "exacerbated" the Great Depression. Smoot Hawley is a scapegoat which is seized upon by conservatives to distract us from the real solutions of protecting jobs at home. Tariffs were used during the first 150 years of this country to build it into an industrial giant, much the way Great Britain did in the beginning of the industrial revolution. Similarly we've seen other countries (Japan, Korea, India, China etc) other countries copy our early success.

This free trader bullshit theory is based on an early 19th century simplistic theory of international trade posited by David Ricardo which has reached the heights of intractable economic dogma. It is a theory and it is flat out wrong, much as the Laffer curve and supply side economics is flat out demonstrably FUCKING INCORRECT!!!

These stupid reporters, and talking-head parroting news-models, who keep screeching about the evils of protectionism, are merely trumpeting the terror corporations are feeling at finally having their rapacious, soul eating machinations brought to an end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Augdog20 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. "100% Wrong" is 100% right
People forget that in an era of intense protection, 1870 to 1929, the US economy thrived and grew like crazy.

This is worse than the 1930s in that we have almost totally abandoned our industrial foundation.

We have to rebuild our industry. We have to stop clinging to a free market ideology that perhaps nearly every other industrial country ignores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Augdog20 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Look what made in China & elsewhere has brought us
(a) selling our souls by tolerating slave labor and police state conditions in China
(b) tolerating horrible conditions elsewhere, just google worker abuse maquiladora
e.g., no bathroom breaks, barbed wire surrounding workplaces
(c) toxic goods coming from China
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. How the city of London created the Great Depression (Webster Tarpley, 1996)
... 1. The events leading to the Great Depression are all related to British economic warfare against the rest of the world, which mainly took the form of the attempt to restore a London-centered world monetary system incorporating the gold standard. The efforts of the British oligarchy in this regard were carried out by a clique of international central bankers dominated by Lord Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, assisted by his tools Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and Hjalmar Schacht of the German Reichsbank. This British-controlled gold standard proved to be a straightjacket for world economic development, somewhat along the lines of the deflationary Maastricht "convergence criteria" of the late 1990's.

2. The New York stock exchange speculation of the Coolidge-Hoover era was not a spontaneous phenomenon, but was rather deliberately encouraged by Norman and Strong under the pretext of relieving pressure on the overvalued British pound sterling after its gold convertibility had been restored in 1925. In practice, the pro-speculation policies of the US Federal Reserve were promoted by Montagu Norman and his satellites for the express purpose of fomenting a Bubble Economy in the United States, just as later central bankers fostered a Bubble Economy in Japan after 1986. When this Wall Street Bubble had reached gargantuan proportions in the autumn of 1929, Montagu Norman sharply cut the British bank rate, repatriating British hot money, and pulling the rug out from under the Wall Street speculators, thus deliberately and consciously imploding the US markets. This caused a violent depression in the United States and some other countries, with the collapse of financial markets and the contraction of production and employment. In 1929, Norman engineered a collapse by puncturing the bubble.

3. This depression was rendered far more severe and, most importantly, permanent, by the British default on gold payment in September, 1931. This British default, including all details of its timing and modalities, and also the subsequent British gambit of competitive devaluations, were deliberate measures of economic warfare on the part of the Bank of England. British actions amounted to the deliberate destruction of the pound sterling system, which was the only world monetary system in existence at that time. The collapse of world trade became irreversible. With deliberate prompting from the British, currency blocs emerged, with the clear implication that currency blocs like the German Reichsmark and the Japanese yen would soon have to go to war to obtain the oil and other natural resources that orderly world trade could no longer provide. In 1931, Norman engineered a disintegration by detonating the gold backing of the pound sterling.

4. In the United States, the deliberate British default of September 1931 led, given the do-nothing Hoover Administration policies, directly to the banking crisis of 1932-33, which closed down or severely restricted virtually every bank in the country by the morning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's inauguration. If Roosevelt had not broken decisively with Hoover's impotent refusal to fight the depression, constitutional government might have collapsed. As it was, FDR was able to roll back the disintegration, but economic depression and mass unemployment were not overcome until 1940 and the passage of Lend-Lease ...

http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm

The above may be an over-simplified view of the causes of the Depression: probably many other matters -- the widespread devastation in parts of Europe as a result of the great War, the economic strains upon the great colonial powers that resulted after the war as a result of the channeling of normal investments into nonproductive war economies, the huge losses of foreign investors when the American stock-bubble collapsed, the subsequent effects of unfortunate coincidences such as the Dustbowl -- should be taken into account ion attempting to understand the causes and courses of the worldwide depression that began in 1929. It is, of course, likely that international tariff issues colored the particular details of that economic collapse -- but is laughably sloppy to attribute the Depression to tariffs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. I started liking protectionism when I heard that Reagan hated it.
Edited on Sun Feb-01-09 10:42 PM by anonymous171
How he got the middle/lower classes to vote for him I have no idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-03-09 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Funny thing, I've never met anyone who will ADMIT that they voted for
that evil old son of a bitch. But a hell of a lot of people did. Why I will NEVER understand. I mean, Smirky lost. I believe he lost twice.

But the Reagan thing, I just don't understand human beings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-09 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. Only protectionism can stop this - the position UK workers are in now...
Edited on Sun Feb-01-09 10:48 PM by Waiting For Everyman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/01/british-jobs-unions-gordon-brown

As industrial unrest at foreign-owned companies refusing to hire British workers spreads, it has emerged the government was told in 2004 that EU laws were being used to prevent local people taking up UK jobs

...

This weekend the conciliation service, Acas, was continuing to try to calm the crisis that has seen workers at oil and power plants up and down the country stage unofficial protests in support of employees at the Lindsey refinery at North Killingholme. Lincolnshire. They are protesting at a decision by the refinery's owner, Total, to hand a £200m construction contract to the Italian company Irem, which employs only Italian and Portuguese workers on the site.

Similar protests have been made at two other construction projects -a refinery in Staythorpe, Nottinghamshire, and a power station on the Isle of Grain, Kent. In both cases, contractors working on behalf of foreign firms have said they will not use local labour.

Further industrial unrest is likely this week. Tomorrow, workers at Sellafield will consider a walkout.

Labour MPs are to table a Commons motion demanding changes to the law to prevent foreign companies undercutting national agreements negotiated by unions on behalf of British work forces.

Colin Burgon, Labour MP for Elmet, said that, if the law remained as it was, "there is going to be social unrest".

It has emerged that unions negotiating the 2004 Warwick agreement - the manifesto commitments made by Labour to the unions in return for financial backing - warned ministers that EU laws were being used to preclude domestic workers from applying for jobs in the UK.




This is being done under the guise of "subcontracting".

Pretty soon we will be in this same position the Brits are in now, if we don't insist on standing up to these globalists on this 'Buy American' issue. These UK workers are not even allowed to apply for work on projects where they live. ONLY foreign workers are hired.

There's the future if we don't stop it here and now. It's time for some economic nationalism bigtime. Workers all over the world know it. We can't fall into this trap too, or it will be much harder to stop all over the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue97keet Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-03-09 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. Lack of "protectionism" is systemically dangerous
because nothing precludes out of whack trade imbalances, concentrations of production, fragile dependency chains, and the absentee landlord syndrome where nobody is accountable for anything that goes wrong. How is it reasonable to put trust in a fragile house of cards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-03-09 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. The thirties was not caused by protectionism, it was caused by the lack of it.
Moron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC