Free Trade vs. Protectionism
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
According to Prof. Don Boudreaux, free trade is nothing more than a system of trade that treats foreign goods and services no differently than domestic goods and services. Protectionism, on the other hand, is a system of trade that discriminates against foreign goods and services in an attempt to favor domestic goods and services. In theory, free trade outperforms protectionism by bringing lower cost goods and services to consumers. In practice, the benefits of free trade can be seen in countries like America and Hong Kong. Both countries have a relatively high degree of free trade, and, as a consequence, have experienced an explosion of wealth. Watch more videos: http://lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY
Comments
-
Free trade as it stands now, combines the trading of both goods and jobs. If corporations were only permitted to use labor (and not corporate prison labor) from the one country they were incorporated in, the issue of free trade might be much easier to work out. It makes no difference to a person who's job was traded away that a widget is 10 cents cheaper. The only buyers of the widgets he used to make will be the rich and those on welfare. The value of a (usually) cheaply made resource wasting foreign made item is being weighed against your neighbor's integrity, health, productivity, sanity and actual life not to mention those he is associated with. National growth? That's a term for those with a portfolio of stocks issued by corporations that can now be sued by their shareholders if they don't put profits each and every quarter ahead of jobs, lives and finite world resources . National growth is nothing to be proud of or sought after in light of how it is being achieved.
-
You cannot compare free trade in America to free trade between other countries. The US is a single country under a single government with its own work and wage standards to level the playing field. There is a federal minimum wage so that people from Kansas can't out bid workers from New York for low wages. You don't have that when competing with workers from Indonesia. Is there any country doesn't have free trade within its own borders? The very fact that this is being used as an argument boggles the mind.
-
2:38 - listen carefully Trump cabinet!
-
Just because we can make nearly everything here we don't need to facilitate imports. When we in effect import labor from 3rd world countries what are our workers supposed to do? Sell their services to Chinese or Mexican employers at Chinese or Mexican wages?
-
I didn't even think about the U.S. in that way. That's interesting. Anyway, I completely support free trade over protectionism. One of the greatest arguments protectionists have against free trade is that it encourages outsourcing of jobs to other nations where wages are lower, thus harming domestic workers. This is true, however, this is not the entire picture. Free trade encourages businesses to produce their goods/services wherever it is most economical to do so. In protectionism, producing goods domestically is artificially made the more economical place. However, this artificially increases prices to domestic consumers. They don't get as low of prices as they could be getting, due to protectionism. So, it harms domestic consumers. Also, when businesses choose to produce their goods/services abroad (say, in poorer countries), they are providing those foreign people the ability to earn at least some income. These wages start out low, as those workers provide little value to the employer. However, over time, wages are increased as their is increased competition for workers between foreign and domestic businesses. We are currently seeing this in China, where wages are now increasing and American businesses are beginning to look elsewhere to produce their goods/services. The only downside is that this does harm American workers who often have their jobs shipped overseas. The answer to this is not, however, to do the less economical thing of protectionism, but rather for American workers to seek employment where there is demand. For example, there are plenty of jobs in health care, trade skills, and information technology in the U.S. and many of these jobs are going unfilled due to a lack of qualified applicants. We have a skills gap an several areas of the U.S. economy because workers simply aren't pursuing these job opportunities.
-
Heavily biased. Buzzwords like "Discriminates" and "Forces Tariffs" Explains the positives of free trade without explaining the negatives, explains the negatives of protectionism without the positives. The video shouldn't be titled "Free Trade vs. Protectionism" as if both sides of the argument are presented, but rather "Globalist Propaganda" as it is the case that the other side of the argument is suppressed. You had the opportunity to persuade me to one side or the other, but instead you simply made me more cautious of the globalist message.
-
Never account for race, social order and culture. It's always who makes the big bucks, fuck your fellow countrymen. "Shipping jobs overseas is a good thing because of "cheap products" and other yet unidentifiable reasons."
I don't give a shit about the "poor countries", I don't care about their development. The only obligation I have is to my people and my people are the ones I'll serve. -
The only thing protectionism is good for is protecting politicians' cronies, and forcing people to pay more for inferior products. It is a restriction on the individuals right to trade with whomever they want, and it is invariably abused by special interests to protect them from competition. There is no justification for protectionism.
-
so the gist I'm getting is that goods get cheaper but jobs will be harder to get. true?
-
Globalization is leading to a new upgraded USSR.
-
Paul Krugman on free-trade March 6, 2016:
But it’s also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. -
Hong Kong is part of China? Excuse me?
-
Trade is not sustainable and free trade is a recipe for suicide.
-
What happens when other countries impose tariffs on American goods to remain competitive with their own domestic goods? How can a country's economy be robust if it doesn't produce enough? Does this create dependence on foreign nations and therefore lead to political coercion by those same foreign nations?
-
America's first major Act passed under the new constitution was hugely Protectionist, the Tariff of 1789, and it helped America develop. America has always been a Protectionist nation in one way or another. America just likes Free Trade when it benefits them—in the industries they already have an advantage against.
-
The great thing about a city built on trade is the only thing you need is a port and an airport to make your economy flourish
-
Free trade is a joke. It is intended to destroy nations, not build them. The U.S. became a super power because of protectionism — not because free trade. Bourdreaux is a Marxist and here is why:
Said Marx: "the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone. . . . that I vote in favor of free trade."
It was Alexander Hamilton who created the American economic system (the National System) which is based on autarky. -
Trade policies
(in 2 mins)
The US constitution came into force in 1789
George Washington was inaugurated as America’s first president and the 1st document
he signed was the Tariff Act, on July 4, 1789.
Alexander Hamilton wrote this act to
”the encouragement and protection of manufactures”
He laid out 11 points to make America strong
1. “Protecting duties.” (Tariffs.)
2. “Prohibition of rival articles or duties equivalent to prohibitions.” (Outright import bans.)
3. “Prohibition of the exportation of the materials of manufactures.” (Export bans on industrial inputs, car parts and machine parts)
4. “Pecuniary bounties.” (Export subsidies, like those provided today by the Export-Import Bank and other programs.)
5. “Premiums.” (Subsidies for key innovations. Today, we would call them research and development tax credits.)
6. “The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.” (Import liberalization for industrial inputs, so some other country can be the raw materials exporter.)
7. “Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures.” (Same idea, by means of tax rebates.)
8. “The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those, which relate to ma- chinery.” (Prizes for inventions and, more importantly, patents.)
9. “Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities.” (Regulation of product standards, as the USDA and FDA do today.)
10. “The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place.” (A sophisticated financial system.)
11. “The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.” (Good infrastructure.)
For the next 150 years our federal government’s only source of income was the 15% tariff on all imported goods. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson , Theodore Roosevelt , and Abraham Lincoln (draw MT Rushmore), all supported tariffs for a strong manufacturing base.
Our country’s citizen’s wealth and manufacturing base grew, under this trade policy, until we became a superpower. #1 in manufacturing, education, wealth, medium income, life expectancy, tallest buildings, fastest trains and the most exports. the American dream was alive.
In 1993 president bill Clinton, abandoned tariffs, signed NAFTA and ushered in Free trade. At the time America made the most cars and computers in the world. 12.7 million cars. China was making 1 million cars and no computers. 12 free trade agreements later, we take a 2nd global snapshot.
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)
Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA)
Central American Integration System (SICA)
Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA)[1]
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
G-3 Free Trade Agreement (G-3)
Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) - June 1957[2]
Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)[3]
Pacific Alliance[4]
South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)[5]
Southern African Development Community (SADC)
Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)
The united states now produces 5 million cars and year and Zero computers
China makes 23 million cars and 454 million computers/year
America has lost between 6 million and 20 million jobs to free trade agreements. 60,000 US plants have been shut down, boxed up and moved overseas.
Our country’s citizen’s wealth and manufacturing base has shrunk, under free trade. #13 in manufacturing, 36th education, 19th wealth,6th medium income, 34th in life expectancy and 3rd in exports.
Asia now has 9 of the 10 tallest buildings in the world, the fastest trains and is ranked #1 in education, manufacturing and exports.
How did China do this? They copied Alexander Hamilton’s list of 11 things to make America strong and renamed it, 11 things to make China strong. And now you know the rest of the story. -
If free trade is so good then where are the american clothing manufactures? If free trade isn't a race to the bottom then why do companies use as a cost cutting method out sourcing IT to India for example where an IT professional is paid only 1/4th of what an american is paid right here. What happens to the standard of living in a race to the bottom? What exactly are we producing in this country anymore might I ask?
-
One of the first bills the president signed into law in 2009 was a raise on the tax on cigarettes. The rationale was that when prices rise demand falls and less cigarettes are sold. If that logic applies to cigarettes wouldn't it also apply to things like labor? Why does the president think raising the price of cigarettes discourages the purchase of cigarettes but raising the price of labor doesn't discourage the purchase of labor? #Keepaskingwhy
3m 13sLenght
416Rating