Democrats should restore protectionism. The root is PROTECT

[Armstead]

Both Obama and Hillary seem to lack the political courage to take a giant leap into common sense regarding our trade policies.

They are both unwilling to acknowledge that it is time to totally reevaluate our trade policies and make the idea of Protectionism legitimate again. The purpose of protectionist policies is TO PROTECT the domestic economy. What the hell is wrong with that?

They both ought to step away from the neoliberal (conservative) demonization of protectionism, and acknowledge that protectionism helped to build this nation's economy and middle class. It's abandonment has had much to do with the decline of the middle class in the last couple of decades.

One problem with the "free trade" conservative approach to trade has been to misrepresent the whole concept of protectionism. The advocates of the right wing ideology (including The Clintons) have created a false either/or choice between protectionism and international trade.

But it does not have to be a choice. We can encourage international trade AND maintain the ability to protect our economy through a variety of specific measures, including selective and moderate tariffs, strong requirements regarding human rights, workers rights , the environment, recriprical benefits, etc.

Either or both candidates would do well to return to common sense, truly balanced trade policies, instead of being part of the right-wing chorus of Markets Uber Alles.

[Zachstar]

1. In my view.

First thing is first. We need to restore the base of the economy. Energy.

We are far too reliant on OPEC decisions and market swings for oil.

If our economy is going to recover well. We need to get it hooked up to an energy source that we will not have to say costs more because of somthing happening halfway around the world.

I hope Obama will support Fusion and Alt. energy research. For OUR economy!

[Tatiana]

2. Other successful countries have some form of protectionism.

Why should we be any different?

[northzax]

4. we do have protectionism

read the farm bill lately? The model the us has followed is subsdies over tariffs for trade policy (seen the piece of sugar lately? Why is it twice the global average? That's tariffs for you)

[Zynx]

7. We have plenty of protectionist measures. For example, we have subisidies and corporate

hand-outs of other kinds like crazy.

[Armstead]

14. Subsidies and corporate hand houts do not automatically equate with protectionism

[merbex]

3. Kicked and recommended and with a commentary

It's pretty sad that this serious topic is only now getting the attention it deserves

[Armstead]

16. Should have been covered in the 90's

But the KoolAid was being too widely consumed back then.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. The problem is, protectionism is hard. It takes many, many

agreements with many different countries, requiring negotiation that considers not only to two primary players, but also the effects those agreements have on each player's other trading partners.

Free trade is 'one size fits all'. It's easy. It's lazy. Thus, its appeal.

[Armstead]

6. One size fits all -- Exactly. The size for the US is downsizing

You hit the nail on the head.

You can't form a common agreement with Canada and Mexico because they are totally different types of countries, with different economies, cultures and domestic needs.

[Nederland]

8. Yeah

...because protectionism worked so well for us in the 1930's.

[Zynx]

10. Indeed. Protectionism has been relegated to the dust bin of history for good reason.

[Armstead]

11. Hi Nederland....Haven't seen you in a while

:hi:

It's worked at otehr times, and as I noted in my post, it doesn;t have to be either/or.

[Nederland]

15. Hey Armstead

It has been a long time. Remember when this board wasn't consumed by primary candidate tit for tat posts and we used actually discussed substantive issues? Ahhhh, the good old days.

[Zynx]

9. This is absurd.

Free trade between equal partners, for example the United States and Germany or the United States and Great Britain, is entirely advantageous. What downside is there from competition between countries and firms of equal standing? If the idea is to avoid "ruinous competition", one would be logically disposed to be in favor of monopolies domestically. The principle is precisely the same.

Free trade principles do not preclude certain measures to correct unfair practices such as gross subsidies or poor levels of worker protections with another trade partner. If one has taken an international trade course they would know this. On balance free trade has certainly been a good thing over time. Even in your own post you admit that international trade is desirable, which of course it is.

[Armstead]

13. There is a difference between free trade and neoliberal "free trade"

The whole purpose of the so-called "free trade" movement is to impose a right wing ideology on every nation, and preclude them from implementing any policies that might "interefere" with the unrestrained workings of the free market.

The remaining vestiges of national sovereignty, here and abroad, are simply those facets of the system that have so far escaped the clutches of the free trade regime.

What's absurd are your absolutist claims that any criticism that the "One Size Fits All" right wing free-market ideology are absurd.

[backscatter712]

12. I agree, to a point.

NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc. has been a disaster - those treaties have the working class here and around the world racing to the bottom, and the only benefactors are the tycoons in big business.

We need to restore fair trade, and yes, that does mean American trade policy that protects Americans.

I don't think we should go as far as retrying Smoot-Hawley - that was a disaster going in the other direction. We just need to make things fair.