Comments on: Protectionism would be a disaster no matter what Stephanie Flanders says

By: Protectionism: this is why it’s so dangerous | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:16:34 +0000

[...] this is why it’s so dangerous Posted at 10:16 pm on 26 Mar 09 by Adam I have written before about why progressives should be very, very cautious before they flirt with protectionist [...]

By: Protectionism: Peston provokes but gets it right | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:46:06 +0000

[...] Peston provokes but gets it right Posted at 11:46 pm on 10 Mar 09 by Adam In a recent post I wrote that the view, as espoused by Stephanie Flanders, that protectionism did not cause the [...]

By: Vovka

Vovka — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:19:29 +0000

The point is that I am totally opposed to any government interference (bailouts, antitrust “fines” and all the other nonsensical things governments get up to) in the economy (otherwise known as people’s lives and the decisions they make to live the best they can), but I am in complete agreement with you as far as there being the necessity of having the state guarantee individual rights, property rights and all its corollaries. The state can’t stop someone from mugging you, but it can pursue and punish the villain. Having said that, the system has become so topsy-turvy and PC that there are now far too many cases where the victim, through some weird process of left-wing liberal doublethink, becomes the villain! Speaking of unionizing, I am totally opposed to a person’s being obliged to join a union in order to secure a job, and I am also opposed to any company’s being forced to employ only those who are members of a given union. This in no way interferes with the choice someone makes to become a member of a particular union if it is in his or her interest to do so. As for calling these sums “accumulated”, it is showing disrespect for the moral process involved in creating wealth from the production of goods people desire. Mugabe, Marcos and others of that ilk accumulated their “wealth” through looting their countries, countries where property rights and most other rights did not exist at all, despite massive state power and control. As I say far too often, I look forward to the day when this earth will host a truly free, capitalist, productive and happy society. The First World has occasionally come close, but then it always regresses towards socialism, a system where only the few have to think for the many. I believe in a system where it would be perfectly natural to expect the many to think, and think for themselves.

By: Charlie Marks

Charlie Marks — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:50:12 +0000

I don’t think that was an argument from intimidation so much as an argument from bewilderment, Vovka.

I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see Gates and co. make their fortunes in a free society that did not depend upon the state enforcing their “right” to own both the enterprises and the intellectual property created by their employees. I doubt that without the legal sanctions on workers’ ability to unionise and the property rights guaranteed by the state, such sums of wealth could be accumulated by individuals.

By: Vovka

Vovka — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:43:16 +0000

Interesting how frequently socialists use the “argument from intimidation” technique (there is so much wrong with the previous comment that I don’t know where to start…), rather than reasoned, factual and objective debate. They would deserve pity if they weren’t so terribly destructive. As for those who devote their lives to making vast sums of money, provided they don’t engage in fraud, they would not be forbidden to do so in a free society. And, yes, many of them HAVE missed the point in life; in a free society you may not always act in your best interests, but you are certainly not to be barred by law from pursuing any activity that doesn’t harm other people or cause damage to their property. Now, those who seek to loot huge sums of money through fraud, like Bernard Madoff, Ken Lay, Al Gore, as well as all the various dictators of the past, present and future, add to that the billions of dollars that the various “anti-monopolies commissions” and “antitrust regulators” are able to loot through their “fines”. Yep, they really have missed the point in life. Apart from the essentials to survival – a cave, a bearskin and a lump of meat – what does a human being need? He or she is not forced to buy the products of those industrialists who make a fortune through selling their products to un-coerced customers, so Bill Gates and others like him deserve every dollar they make.

Enough, I don^t have time for this. Good night to all those Europeans who still uphold reason.

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:34:19 +0000

There is so much wrong with the previous comment that I don’t know where to start and don’t really have the time to respond. Suffice to say that fundamentalist free marketeers now remind me of those marxists who, so terrified of having to ditch their beloved ideology, spent countless hours developing ever more elaborate explanations for why the evidence really didn’t prove them wrong.

And just to say that I guess I’m a socialist after a fashion but I’m certainly not envious. People who devote their lives to making vast sums of money seem to me to have missed the point of life. They deserve pity rather than envy.

By: Vovka

Vovka — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:52:35 +0000

Interestingly, both Hoover and FDR were strong advocates and activists of interventionism and it was a combination of their policies (Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR’s New Deal and the NRA) coupled with the Fed’s inflation of the money supply (largely responsible for the 1929 crash) which caused and prolonged the Great Depression. Historically, the economy had always managed to self-correct (1893 and 1921-22) and thus avoid the catastrophic “boom and bust” cycle so favored by interventionist socialist governments. The lesson to be learned is “hands off”, ie the separation of Economy and State. Until that happens, we will always be victims of all the economic distortions caused by over-regulation bureaucrats. As for those who claim that all our financial problems are due to deregulation, explain, if you can, the fact that housing and banking are the most regulated sectors of the US economy (there have been 51,000 new laws governing these sectors over the last 12 years). Also, there is the infamous Community Reinvestment Act that tied lenders hand and foot. May Americans return to respecting the best Constitution in the world and become the first country in history to institute a free-market capitalist system. The resulting real prosperity would help to rid the world of socialist interventionist envy-mongers.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:17:46 +0000

To Xavier,

In fact all the economies affected by the Second World War recovered under conditions of protectionism, bilateral trade agreements and a healthy injection of aid from the USA. But this was protectionism that was agreed to at an international level after the war and implemented at a time when the global economy was already wrecked. A sudden shift to protectionist policies at a time of widespread global trade and without political agreement at multilateral level is a very different affair. That’s what happened in the 1930s with the consequences I mention in the post.

By: xavier goossens

xavier goossens — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:59:43 +0000

Can you explain how Japan recovered from the catastrophic saecond World War, if not by protectionnism ?

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:13:27 +0000

Ah yes, Milton Friedman, the wicked state socialist with his oppressive monetary policy. I remember him.

By: Charlie Marks

Charlie Marks — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:53:47 +0000

Protectionism for the rich – bailing out the bankers – has been a disaster. Can we please have some protectionism for working people?

By: Jesse Bickel

Jesse Bickel — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:36:22 +0000

Milton Friedman is hardly a free market economist, for precisely the reason you stated. He believed in a central banking system.

“Keynes’ credibility as an economist [is] higher than it has been in decades”? God help us all. I agree, unfortunately. Nearly every economist in any major newspaper, on any major television show, or in any mainstream books is a Keynesian.

We should be thankful for true free market economists, and the fact that their credibility is expanding faster than any other school of thought.

http://www.mises.org