Comments on: G20 should be pragmatic about protectionism

By: Vic Sage

Vic Sage — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:01:44 +0000

I would suggest that anyone who advocates protectionism and tariffs would do well to Google “Smoot-Hawley Act”…

By: SKV

SKV — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:34:37 +0000

Liberal keep saying “Protectionism is to be avoided”. Why?
What are benefits from “Open Markets” for West?
They go in length about benefits for 3rd World/China/India (elevating poverty/progress/new middle class/education/ etc). But when I looks at deserted US towns I see that who pays they price. I see US corp redirect investments to 3rd world effectively driving wealth from west to east. China/India go through Industrial Revolution. Small farm become uneconomical and 1,000,000s redundant farm laborers driven to cities providing cheap labor for factories. Companies provide little pay and virtually no insurance or benefits. West went through this in 1700′s-1900′s. I see why it is good for corporations. I don’t see why it is good for US citizens. If we go through this again I can give another history lesson. Industrialization triggered huge unrests and multiple revolutions and wars in Europe/Asia. Do we need to go through this again?
We need protectionism. Lets make corp pay China workers the same salary/benefits. Obey the same environmental requirements.

By: David

David — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:45:19 +0000

Protectionism is to be avoided, we need global progress and free trade, absolutlely. However this topic is connected to the core cause of the economic crisis, and is still not being openly discussed. As we transition to a globally inclusive economy many industries will change their center of gravity and many jobs will move around. The labor arbitrage will mean that salaries will continue to be depressed in the developed world as more and more low pay workers enter the system in the third world. This move is accelerated by technology which now also enables the professions to be outsourced. The INABILITY of the developed world to create local jobs fast enough is now beyond question. We are used to the concept that as old industries go then new industries come, but now new jobs are not coming fast enough. So in the last few years we have kidded ourselves that retail jobs funded by cheap credit are as valuable as jobs in the productive sector. Now that the credit bubble has burst how can we create and keep jobs in the productive sector? Is it enough to say to people that they must just compete for jobs with folks prepared to work for 10% of their salary? Or do we really need to figure out that people are also stakeholders as well as capital.