Free trade is under increasing threats as countries become more protectionist.
People who think this is good don’t understand that trade restrictions empower the state and disempower people.
They restrict choice, add costs and often lower quality.
The only fair trade is free trade.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
The only fair trade is free trade.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
6 comments:
But protectionism safeguards domestic employment and gives a nation greater control over its own economy as opposed to being at the mercy of overseas suppliers. Protectionism has become a dirty word because it militates against the overconcentration of economic power through globalisation. The mindset underpinning protectionism is "own people first". Think twice before jumping on the bandwaggon and slagging off protectionism.
Now we come to the chasm between collectivists and individualists.
If rights are won on the battlefield, we may assume they belong to the
winners, but who are they? Do states win wars or do people?
If states win wars and people merely fight them, then states hold the rights and may grant or deny them to the people. On the other hand, if people win wars and states merely serve them in this matter, then the people hold rights and may grant or deny them to states.
If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free
society, we must choose between these two concepts. Individualists choose
the concept that rights come from the people and states are the servants.
Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from states and people are
the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty.
Barend, I've thought three times.
You're talking hogwash.
The thing protectionism protects is the production of inferior goods and the consequent high prices for those goods.
Any manufacturer or industry that cannot compete with global competition is in the wrong business.
Far from "Protectionism ..... militates against the overconcentration of economic power through globalisation" protectionism does the opposite, allowing a small group of owners to control a very large percentage of production and therefore wealth.
That bandwagon; I'm jumping on it!
The Chinese Communist Party will be delighted to know your position on this, Tinman. The more people who see it your way, the smoother Beijing's ride to attain global economic hegemony.
The EU is a classic example of a protectionist bloc. They protect their farmers from competition. There has been much debate that the EU impoverishes Africa by applying significant tarrifs. NZ has managed to get a free trade agreement by trading a degree of sovereignty for market access. NZ now has to abide by EU laws on climate change etc
Interventionism describes a situation in which the government “wants to interfere with market phenomena.” Each intervention involves an abrogation of the consumer sovereignty.
The government wants to interfere in order to force businesses to conduct their affairs in a different way than they would have chosen if they had obeyed only the consumers.
Thus, all the measures of interventionism by the government are directed toward restricting the supremacy of consumers.
Interventionism, as a “middle-of-the-road policy,” is actually a road toward totalitarianism.
Ludwig von Mises
Post a Comment