You mean an economy that exports 54% of GDP and has very small deficits, public debt and unemployment??? IDK...
Nope.
yes and those protectionist policies severely prolonged the depression and also created the robber barons,glad your proud of supporting the most oppressive era in american history while its most prosperous as well as the industrialized world occured after ww2 when most countries abandoned protectionism for free trade.
yea, but you seem to forget where government gets the money to do all this... we all get so easily distracted by whats in front of us that we seldom notice the opportunity costs of our decisions. we all know government is inefficient at best and extremely wasteful at most of what it does, yet the prospect that an alternative to government solutions would likely be more productive is ridiculed... go figure.
You are assuming the private sector is more efficient. When 75% of business start ups fail within 3 years, that doesn't bode well for arguing that the private sector is more efficient. But alas I am not saying government is better at it, just that it is better at getting money to areas that need it more.
Every single powerful industry was the beneficiary of help from the government: railroads (free land and free chinese labor), airplanes (army paying for most advancements, even hiring Wright brothers), automobiles (with creation of roads, highways etc.), computers (internet technology), aerospace technology, green technology, oil (highly subsidized).
To deny that the US has benefited from this is like denying you need oxygen to breathe.
It's 100% efficient a picking winners or losers.
Oil wasn't subsidized until 1916. Long after the industry was in fact a giant.
What do you believe to be the vital function of the price system?
"Prices transmit information, and people need information, so government shouldn't interfere with prices"
Are you kidding me? As if information were the vital function of the price system. You're stretching it, billy. Trying to ascribe an argument for deregulation to this is ridiculous. This guy is explaining the most rudimentary economics (really, econ 101 is an overstatement) and putting faulty moral reasoning on it to suit his partisan agenda, and I'm guessing his colleagues call him an economist.
How do people go to a university of economics and come out with something that a high school student could do better (and should know better)?
This was settled a few posts down from that. Go from there.What do you believe to be the vital function of the price system?
The protected companies benefit, not necessarily the consumers or the nation as a whole.Hey kids, a meme!
The issue is do protectionists policies help or harm a nation that follows them. The answer is, it depends. Nations attempting to kick start new industries are usually benefited from some protectionism.
So your market evangelist religious doctrine has been proved false again.
Actually they were given free land as well...
You are assuming the private sector is more efficient. When 75% of business start ups fail within 3 years, that doesn't bode well for arguing that the private sector is more efficient. But alas I am not saying government is better at it, just that it is better at getting money to areas that need it more.
LOL, which means nothing. Who wins when McDonalds feeds many but poisons them? Who wins when Monsanto feeds billions but poisons them? Who wins when banks fail and get bailed out?
Oh wait somehow you will say this aint free market. LOL.
Actually.. I'd say McDonalds and Monsanto is free market, just stupid consumers. Banks getting bailed out is not Free Market.. to say so is idiocy.
Sorry I baited you with that one. What do you think benefits society more, McDonalds/Monsanto (free market choices) or banks (state sponsored)?Actually.. I'd say McDonalds and Monsanto is free market, just stupid consumers. Banks getting bailed out is not Free Market.. to say so is idiocy.
Sorry I baited you with that one. What do you think benefits society more, McDonalds/Monsanto (free market choices) or banks (state sponsored)?
Define benefit. Economically? Socially (which we'll end up arguing about)?
I think the notion that economically beneficial and socially beneficial are two separate criteria is decidedly not beneficial for society.
(if he's gone for the night) I'm sure if he had to choose he'd pick socially beneficial. That's kinda the whole moral theme behind the MMT movement.What I mean is specifically what is JP looking for.. I am not saying they are mutually exclusive but rather what is the priority to him. Does the egg come before the chicken or the chicken before the egg.
Perhaps it would do you good to spend more time on the subject. Infant industry protectionism is an established mechanism throughout the developing world. That you were not able to find a source to satisfy your intellectual and partisan bias is of no use to this discussion.
Hey kids, a meme!
The issue is do protectionists policies help or harm a nation that follows them. The answer is, it depends. Nations attempting to kick start new industries are usually benefited from some protectionism.
So your market evangelist religious doctrine has been proved false again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?