In many ways, so is Trump.
[Update a few minutes later]
In reading, I see he made the same point:
Mme Le Pen is offering more of the medicine that sickened the patient. Protectionism and welfarism are the causes of France’s troubles. The French budget has not been in balance since 1974. In order to defend the privileges of state employees, successive governments have allowed the country as a whole to become less competitive, more strike-prone, more sclerotic and poorer.
It’s the same story every time. Protectionism inflicts the greatest harm on the least well off – who are often, paradoxically, its supporters. The Corn Laws were a massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs brought misery to America’s workers. Today’s anti-market agitators – the Trumps and the Tsiprases as much as the Le Pens – will find the same thing.
Indeed.
The fact that free trade works wherever it is tried – compare autarkic North Korea to open South Korea
Yeah, 40 years of despotism has nothing to do with it. The average North Korean’s life sucks because the country’s rulers keep preventing the huddled masses from South Korea and China, yearning to breath free, from entering the country.
Mr. Hannan should apply at The Onion.
If North Korea were to adopt free trade that despotism would fall over, despots use xenophobia to retain power, protectionism is part of that. Trumps opposition to free trade is an indicator of where he sits on the authoritarian – libertarian spectrum.
Where do his positions on lowering punative regulations and tax rates put him on the spectrum?
He just moving the punitive regulations and tax rates to a different piece of the economy he doesn’t like. It still the government trying to pick winners and losers and still authoritarianism. If he raises tariff against goods from Mexico or charge increased taxes to company that off shore businesses. Now we have a need to prevent out trading partners from gaming us manipulating to there advantage and to our disadvantage.
You skipped over his plans to lower punative regulations and taxes at home. He wants to create a better environment for all businesses. That is most certainly not authoritarianism.
I haven’t seen any specifics on tariff proposals, so we will have to wait and see what happens. But tariffs themselves are not “authoritarianism”.
Ah yes. Protection of borders is xenophobia. Tell that to the black men who can’t get decent jobs because they’re competing with illegal immigrants. How racist of you.
Jon, “protectionism” refers to trade policy, not immigration policy
No, it doesn’t. I shouldn’t have to explain to you how protecting our borders means keeping out illegal immigrants.
“Protectionism refers to government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are tariffs and quotas on imports and subsidies or tax cuts granted to local businesses. The primary objective of protectionism is to make local businesses or industries more competitive by increasing the price or restricting the quantity of imports entering the country.”
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp
Ah yes, the open South Korean economy… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
At least as open as the US economy
http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
It’s a bit more subtle. Game theory with multiple players maximizes returns if you follow a ‘tit-for-tat’ strategy. To encourage free trade you must punish some bad actors but only for as long as it takes to get them to fall in line. Tariffs are generally bad, but not always bad. Ronald Reagan used them to good effect. Trump, leaving TPP for doing one-on-one deals, strongly suggests he understands this principle.
The bluster should be ignored because that’s just a style (often seen in some annoying poker players.) It’s meant to unbalance the competition (and fools them into thinking they are dealing with somebody unbalanced when they aren’t, conferring an advantage in negotiation.) Some chess players do something similar but it doesn’t work too well if the defender plays solid and doesn’t get rattled.
Actually countries like the USA and France would probably fare fairly well under a limited Autarchy. They both produce enough food to feed themselves, have pretty large energy sectors, have economies which are not reliant on exports and have the potential to replace a lot of their imports. I am rather more concerned about what could end up being the result of this global movement to Autarchy though. Last time this happened we basically had WWII afterwards.
“Actually countries like the USA and France would probably fare fairly well under a limited Autarchy.”
In economic terms you’re right that larger economies, because trade is a smaller fraction of their GDP, are better off than small economies if trade is restricted, they are though still better off with free trade than they would be under isolationist policies. As an example; America gets a lot of really cheap manufactured stuff from China and Mexico, and cheap raw materials from around the world, if those goods had to be produced domestically they’d be far more expensive to the consumer, inflation would rise without a concurrent rise in incomes.
if those goods had to be produced domestically they’d be far more expensive
Why?
And are the companies currently making these goods American companies or foreign companies?
“Why?” Get serious wodun, many products are produced more cheaply outside the US and imported because that’s the cheaper production option, the why is self evident.
If the Trump administration inhibits imports it will also be inhibiting US exports, Trump would be handing the large commercial jet market to Airbus, big chunks of the global microelectronics market to Asia. If you don’t understand why that is go and read up on economics.
Yes, the “why” is our absurd tax rate. Hopefully Trump will reduce it and there will be a return of US companies.
The why is important because there are things that can be done to make the business environment in the USA more competitive. And there is little self evident about it.
There is a complex mix of factors at play. What Trump needs is the buy in of state and local politicians to enact business friendly policies in their own sphere of influence.
There is also a distinction between foreign companies selling goods in the USA and domestic companies that off shore manufacturing. Trying to keep American companies in America is not the same as keeping foreign companies out.
“The why is important because there are things that can be done to make the business environment in the USA more competitive.”
Improving the business environment in the US to significantly reduce costs would be a reason to act to increase the freedom to trade internationally. Trump apparently does not believe or else intend that the US business environment can or will be greatly improved.
Trump apparently does not believe or else intend that the US business environment can or will be greatly improved.
He has already taken action through executive action to lower regulations, which might not work out so well in practice. His tax policy is slowly winding its way through congress.
Trump would be handing the large commercial jet market to Airbus, big chunks of the global microelectronics market to Asia.
Why?
, if those goods had to be produced domestically they’d be far more expensive to the consumer, inflation would rise without a concurrent rise in incomes.
Add innovation and productivity into your model.
Why Trump is considered a dictator by the left is obviously a product of delusion. To me it’s a giant, mass psychological projection.
“Add innovation and productivity into your model.”
Add foreign innovation and productivity into yours.
I’m not claiming Trump’s a dictator, he appears to be somewhat authoritarian, but for him to be a dictator would require him to have powers that he does not have.
You said that prices would increase. I am saying that is not true.
“You said that prices would increase. I am saying that is not true.”
Good grief, I though you were of the right! Restrict competition and prices increase, restrict competition by the lowest cost suppliers and prices increase dramatically.
He hasn’t done anything authoritarian. Perhaps your perception isn’t based on events but rather the intentionally biased views of people who filter those events and frame them for presentation.
For example, xenophobes don’t marry foreigners who speak seven languages.
I haven’t suggested Trump is a xenophobe, I haven’t claimed Trump has managed to do anything authoritarian, just that he appears to be that way inclined
I haven’t suggested Trump is a xenophobe,
It certainly appeared that way.
just that he appears to be that way inclined
How so?
The US has had Autarchs in the past. It didn’t work out too well. FDR prolonged the Depression by ten years. Wilson and FDR put people in camps.
“The US has had Autarchs in the past.” It has not, you’re letting your imagination run wild.
Actually, Lincoln was darn close to one. The other two were just megalomaniacs.
Environmentalists never seem to have a limit on the cost of the things they want to protect. Protect the Snail Darter, no problem bankrupting a quarter of the central valley farmers. Same deal with free traders. Free trade is great. It knocks down unions and lowers costs to the public. No problem with the dead industries in the rust belt. No problem about the government hiring those out of work into Democratic vote farms. No problem with making our trading pardners into global superpowers. Too much of anything is bad. Sorry, but it’s time to down size free trade and reestablish national manufacturing and borders. If for no other reason than getting the rustbelt unions to join a conservative party to re-center a country that has “turned left” so many times that it’s being going in circles since the 90s.
Part of the problem is those that think free trade is a type of anarchy when it is not. The basic element of free trade is it is made up of two parties where they are free to make any agreement. That’s why TPP is not free trade.
Targeted tariffs are not antithetical to free trade! Across the board tariffs would be.