• 121 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for nomsayin
nomsayin

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 nomsayin
Member since 2013 • 1346 Posts

What are your views on protectionism? 

pro·tec·tion·ism 

n.The advocacy, system, or theory of protecting domestic producers by impeding or limiting, as by tariffs or quotas, the importation of foreign goods and services. 
Avatar image for deactivated-59f03d6ce656b
deactivated-59f03d6ce656b

2944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 deactivated-59f03d6ce656b
Member since 2009 • 2944 Posts

What are your views on protectionism? 

pro·tec·tion·ism 

n.The advocacy, system, or theory of protecting domestic producers by impeding or limiting, as by tariffs or quotas, the importation of foreign goods and services. nomsayin
Some protectionist practices are good.
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
How can it ever hurt
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
KC_Hokie

16099

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 KC_Hokie
Member since 2006 • 16099 Posts

As a response to a another country or competitor 'cheating' like China....I think it's fine.

Just out of the blue protectionism is very dangerous.

Avatar image for nomsayin
nomsayin

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 nomsayin
Member since 2013 • 1346 Posts
How can it ever hurtdave123321
Consumers get inferior products.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts

That is a really stupid economic policy.

Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
Not always good. It can be exploited by industries which can't keep up with demand to jack up import tariffs, the burden of which is passed on to the consumer.
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
[QUOTE="dave123321"]How can it ever hurtnomsayin
Consumers get inferior products.

Can't they just demand better
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="nomsayin"][QUOTE="dave123321"]How can it ever hurtdave123321
Consumers get inferior products.

Can't they just demand better

Only at the expense of reducing the quality/quantity of another good.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#10 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts
In most cases, protectionism is awful.
Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts
You need a good balance of justified and beneficial protectionism and globalization to have a healthy, competitive, vibrant and open market.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
Not a fan of America's current state of simply being a consumer nation.
Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts
You need a good balance of justified and beneficial protectionism and globalization to have a healthy, competitive, vibrant and open market.GazaAli
When is protectionism justified? You're just giving your own industries an unfair edge.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts

Not a fan of America's current state of simply being a consumer nation. Fightingfan
We're not simply a consumer nation. Other countries invest in the US to produce their goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_received_FDI

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts
[QUOTE="GazaAli"]You need a good balance of justified and beneficial protectionism and globalization to have a healthy, competitive, vibrant and open market.deeliman
When is protectionism justified? You're just giving your own industries an unfair edge.

It can be beneficial to your own economy, market or labour force for that matter. You have to look out for your own people sometimes there is nothing wrong with that. But it certainly need to be controlled and have safeguards to keep it in check.
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#16 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
The free market should remain free.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]Not a fan of America's current state of simply being a consumer nation. EagleEyedOne

We're not simply a consumer nation. Other countries invest in the US to produce their goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_received_FDI

That doesn't say much other than that the NYSE being large.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
The free market should remain free.foxhound_fox
Murica's not a free market.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]Not a fan of America's current state of simply being a consumer nation. Fightingfan

We're not simply a consumer nation. Other countries invest in the US to produce their goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_received_FDI

That doesn't say much other than that the NYSE being large.

Stocks and bonds are in a different account called portfolio investment. FDI is the actual building of factories or businesses in another country.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#20 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Murica's not a free market. Fightingfan
Don't recall saying it was.
Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]You need a good balance of justified and beneficial protectionism and globalization to have a healthy, competitive, vibrant and open market.GazaAli
When is protectionism justified? You're just giving your own industries an unfair edge.

It can be beneficial to your own economy, market or labour force for that matter. You have to look out for your own people sometimes there is nothing wrong with that. But it certainly need to be controlled and have safeguards to keep it in check.

And then nations you're trading with will also protect their industries, hurting your economy. And if the major economies of the world (EU,US,China) do that than 3th world nations will get even poorer than they already are, as they cannot compete (this is already happening in the agricultural industry).
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts

[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]You need a good balance of justified and beneficial protectionism and globalization to have a healthy, competitive, vibrant and open market.GazaAli
When is protectionism justified? You're just giving your own industries an unfair edge.

It can be beneficial to your own economy, market or labour force for that matter. You have to look out for your own people sometimes there is nothing wrong with that. But it certainly need to be controlled and have safeguards to keep it in check.

It is not good for your own economy. It's bad for the market because there are less options to choose from and bad for the labor force because laborers are forced to work in industries in which they are less productive. It discourages competition and ultimately wages are less than they would be if there were more businesses competing for those workers.

 

It also depreciates your currency since no other countries are able to use it productively. All other goods in the world become more expensive.

Avatar image for Barbariser
Barbariser

6785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#23 Barbariser
Member since 2009 • 6785 Posts

It's completely economically unjustifiable and will usually result in inferior living standards over the long term for most of the population.

Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts
Anyone who advocates protectionism doesn't understand the broken window fallacy. Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="famicommander"]Anyone who advocates protectionism doesn't understand the broken window fallacy. Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
Someone explain the broken window fallacy for me. In Texas terms
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
Someone explain the broken window fallacy for me. In Texas termsdave123321
Someone slashed your Chevy Silverado tires? Great! Now you can spend money to repair them instead of using that money to invest in the stock market or building something new!
Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts
Someone explain the broken window fallacy for me. In Texas termsdave123321
Imagine that you are a gunshop owner (Texas terms :P), and you have kid. Your kid takes one of your guns and shoots at a window in your store, breaking it in the process. One of the bystanders offers to pay you for that broken window, because he felt bad for you. So you pay someone to fix your windows, and all is well. Now, if you try to argue from here on that breaking windows is a good thing, because it brings money in circulation ( the money you got that you payed someone with to repair your windows), that is a fallacy, because that money might have otherwise be used by that bystander to buy new shoes, or whatever. I don't really see what this has to do with protectionism though.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="dave123321"]Someone explain the broken window fallacy for me. In Texas termsdeeliman
Imagine that you are a gunshop owner (Texas terms :P), and you have kid. Your kid takes one of your guns and shoots at a window in your store, breaking it in the process. One of the bystanders offers to pay you for that broken window, because he felt bad for you. So you pay someone to fix your windows, and all is well. Now, if you try to argue from here on that breaking windows is a good thing, because it brings money in circulation ( the money you got that you payed someone with to repair your windows), that is a fallacy, because that money might have otherwise be used by that bystander to buy new shoes, or whatever. I don't really see what this has to do with protectionism though.

It has absolutely nothing to do with protectionism.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178846 Posts
I think it might be good to tighten up a bit....
Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts
[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="famicommander"]Anyone who advocates protectionism doesn't understand the broken window fallacy. Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.

It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="famicommander"]Anyone who advocates protectionism doesn't understand the broken window fallacy. Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.famicommander
The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.

It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

Except nothing is being destroyed. Resources are being redirected as a result of policies forcing consumers to spend on the same produced in their own country as opposed to cheaper goods produced in another country. There is no destruction only a re-allocation of money.

Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts
[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.

It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

Except nothing is being destroyed. Resources are being redirected as a result of policies forcing consumers to spend on goods they otherwise would not buy.

Productivity is being destroyed; wealth is being destroyed. When you need to use coercion to direct resources from one sector of the economy to another you are by definition decreasing wealth and productivity. People see the companies favored by the protectionist policies thriving and they assume it is economically beneficial, but what is not seen is the more productive use of every dollar spent on protectionist-supported endeavors. If you've read Hazlitt's book I referenced he uses the logic of the broken window fallacy and applies it to many common economic sophisms. He does a whole chapter on protectionism. You can read it for free here: http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf The chapter begins on page 59.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="famicommander"] It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

Except nothing is being destroyed. Resources are being redirected as a result of policies forcing consumers to spend on goods they otherwise would not buy.

Productivity is being destroyed; wealth is being destroyed. When you need to use coercion to direct resources from one sector of the economy to another you are by definition decreasing wealth and productivity. People see the companies favored by the protectionist policies thriving and they assume it is economically beneficial, but what is not seen is the more productive use of every dollar spent on protectionist-supported endeavors. If you've read Hazlitt's book I referenced he uses the logic of the broken window fallacy and applies it to many common economic sophisms. He does a whole chapter on protectionism. You can read it for free here: http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf The chapter begins on page 59.

I see what you are saying, but it still is not direct enough to use the broken window fallacy as a supportive statement.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178846 Posts
[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="famicommander"]Anyone who advocates protectionism doesn't understand the broken window fallacy. Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.

It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#36 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.

It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?

Or, as has historically happened, other industries form to meet the increased demand.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.

It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?

The only way you would be able to import cheap goods is if your currency is worth more than the country in question. That would imply your economy is strong enough to support high interest rates. This is never the case with closed economies.
Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with protectionist policy.

It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?

If you continue importing cheap goods consumers in the economy have more money to offer more employment in other industries. Further, the companies doing the actual importing will offer employment. Your premise that wealth-destroying activities (protectionism) increase net employment is logically contradictory. Protectionism can only increase employment by force, for one specific group of people at the expense of every other actor in the economy. I would very much suggest reading Hazlitt's book. It's free, concise, short, and logically constructed: http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178846 Posts
[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="famicommander"] It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?

The only way you would be able to import cheap goods is if your currency is worth more than the country in question. That would imply your economy is strong enough to support high interest rates. This is never the case with closed economies.

Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.
Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts
[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Except nothing is being destroyed. Resources are being redirected as a result of policies forcing consumers to spend on goods they otherwise would not buy.

Productivity is being destroyed; wealth is being destroyed. When you need to use coercion to direct resources from one sector of the economy to another you are by definition decreasing wealth and productivity. People see the companies favored by the protectionist policies thriving and they assume it is economically beneficial, but what is not seen is the more productive use of every dollar spent on protectionist-supported endeavors. If you've read Hazlitt's book I referenced he uses the logic of the broken window fallacy and applies it to many common economic sophisms. He does a whole chapter on protectionism. You can read it for free here: http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf The chapter begins on page 59.

I see what you are saying, but it still is not direct enough to use the broken window fallacy as a supportive statement.

Yes it is, because the underlying logic is exactly the same. The broken window fallacy doesn't only apply to acts of direct destruction and subsequent reactions; it applies to all attempts to argue using its same underlying logic.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?

The only way you would be able to import cheap goods is if your currency is worth more than the country in question. That would imply your economy is strong enough to support high interest rates. This is never the case with closed economies.

Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.

It still depends on how cheap your currency is.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178846 Posts
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="famicommander"] It has everything to do with it. It has to do with what is seen and what is unseen. With protectionist policy people see that it stimulates domestic industry, as the broken window stimulates the window salesman. What is unseen is the damage done to the person whose window was broken, as he now must spend money that would otherwise be directed at some other productive use on the window. In the same way, people who are forced to pay higher prices for domestic products instead of cheaper foreign ones are harmed. The money they would have spent on some other productive use is redirected by protectionism to its less urgent use. Protectionism is one of the most simple and clear cut examples of the broken window fallacy.

No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?

Or, as has historically happened, other industries form to meet the increased demand.

What are you talking about here? Increased demand for what? Decrease in production cost with no government mandated employee wages etc means the goods will always be less than what can be made domestically. I'm not sure how that translates to increased demand. Or are you talking about something else entirely?
Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. If you continue importing cheap goods all you have is people out of work that can't afford to purchase the goods. How does that help anyone?

The only way you would be able to import cheap goods is if your currency is worth more than the country in question. That would imply your economy is strong enough to support high interest rates. This is never the case with closed economies.

Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.

In which case domestic resources are redirected to more productive endeavors.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178846 Posts
[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The only way you would be able to import cheap goods is if your currency is worth more than the country in question. That would imply your economy is strong enough to support high interest rates. This is never the case with closed economies.

Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.

It still depends on how cheap your currency is.

Not really.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178846 Posts
[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The only way you would be able to import cheap goods is if your currency is worth more than the country in question. That would imply your economy is strong enough to support high interest rates. This is never the case with closed economies.

Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.

In which case domestic resources are redirected to more productive endeavors.

Which isn't happening....
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.

It still depends on how cheap your currency is.

Not really.

Why not?
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#47 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The only way you would be able to import cheap goods is if your currency is worth more than the country in question. That would imply your economy is strong enough to support high interest rates. This is never the case with closed economies.EagleEyedOne
Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.

It still depends on how cheap your currency is.

You're identifying a result, LJ is identifying a cause. It's not at its root about money, since if countries were otherwise identical then purchasing power parity would indeed hold.

Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not entirely. Labor is a big cost of production and a country that doesn't pay much for labor will be able to under cut domestic production.chessmaster1989

It still depends on how cheap your currency is.

You're identifying a result, LJ is identifying a cause. It's not at its root about money, since if countries were otherwise identical then purchasing power parity would indeed hold.

The market is not strong efficient.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#49 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] It still depends on how cheap your currency is.EagleEyedOne

You're identifying a result, LJ is identifying a cause. It's not at its root about money, since if countries were otherwise identical then purchasing power parity would indeed hold.

The market is not strong efficient.

You're right it isn't, although there are many human causes of that. Nonetheless LJ is somewhat more correct on this than you are.
Avatar image for EagleEyedOne
EagleEyedOne

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 EagleEyedOne
Member since 2013 • 1676 Posts
[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You're identifying a result, LJ is identifying a cause. It's not at its root about money, since if countries were otherwise identical then purchasing power parity would indeed hold.

chessmaster1989
The market is not strong efficient.

You're right it isn't, although there are many human causes of that. Nonetheless LJ is somewhat more correct on this than you are.

Perhaps. I need his responses to be clarified further as I am a bit inebriated.