Who do you vote for if it's McCain Vs. Obama?

[HemlockGrey]

So does a lack of any protection, actually, as seen many times in teh Third and Second world. Or maybe you forgot that South Korea's economic standup was fuelled by it's leaders autocratically selecting a cabal of loyal oligarchs who would invest into the nation for their loyalty, and loyalty was a prime qualifier for ST tycoons?

Indeed it's a line, and a fine one. But blanket idiotic statements like "it does not work period" are ridiculous.

Most powerhouse economies got where they are today through protectionism. America, the UK, Japan, Germany, the Asian Tigers- all employed protectionist policies on their way to the top. The Latin American economies also employed different protectionist policies and failed. As with all things, there's a great deal of nuance and diversity under the umbrella of "protectionism".

However, when it comes to pulling out of NAFTA and protectionism aimed at saving American manufacturing jobs, I'd agree that its a foolish policy. American manufacturing jobs that need legislation to keep them from going overseas are going to disappear anyway because eventually the only market that will exist for them is the American market. Import substitution didn't work for Latin America and it won't work for us.

[K. A. Pital]

American manufacturing jobs that need legislation to keep them from going overseas are going to disappear anyway because eventually the only market that will exist for them is the American market.

I agree that US and Canada's economies are so integrated that acting against that is pointless by now, and will only do harm. This is actually an issue I admit Obama and Clinton are both wrong on, just PR politicking.

However, Straha's "proof" that protectionism doesn't work period is wrong.

[Straha]

Due in no small part to protectionism we're facing sky-rocketing food prices, while American farmers (the very people the tariffs were supposed to protect) bitch their ass off about how they're going out of business.

Tell me how protectionism is the reason for the rise of food prices. Also tell me why a nation should not enact protectionism if it's own citizens can't buy the food and starve. Are you really that dumb?

It's five o'clock in the morning, so I hope you'll excuse me if I keep this brief and come back to it later. To take America as an example massive amounts of money are being shelled out to buy corn to make alternative fuel. On top of the massive amount of money being spent that way, the lovely government spends even more money paying people not to farm land. Why? So as to protect the American farmer by keeping food prices high.

I'm not even going to touch Europe right now. As for not enacting protectionism if its own citizens can't buy food, I'd point out that protectionism keeps prices high and keeps wages low. So it hurts the poor instead of helps them. Moving quickly along.

Possible famines due to "protectionism"? Tell me about it. Which large famines happened due to protectionism, as opposed to selling out food to uncaring fat jackasses, when poorer people starve? I can't think of an example offhand, and I know many famines: the Great Irish Famine, the Bengal famine, Bangladesh Famine, Imperial Russia famines, USSR 1930 famines, and they all share a common mechanism which has NOTHING to do with protectionism and ALL to do with selling food out when it would be better NOT to - i.e. anti-protectionist policy in food trade.

Two points: A. I said possible referring to the present day looking at situations in Egypt, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.
B. The Great Irish famine happened in no small part due to the corn laws which prevented the import of Grain from outside Great Britain to feed starving people in Ireland. The Bengal famine under the British Raj happened under a colonialist mercantile system which prevented subjects from buying any goods that weren't from Britain or British colonies. The 1930 famines happened under the Stalinist system which was one of the most protectionist and screwy economic systems ever forced on man. I'd keep going, but my bed looks so inviting right now I'm going to go to sleep. I'll come back to this tomorrow.

[K. A. Pital]

I think "protectionism" means raising barriers to international trade, Straha. So both Stalin and the British Raj are not protectionist because both easily gathered foods for international trade; the USSR traded heavily on the grain market. What about Tsarist Russia? It traded heavily too while the calorie availability per head remained lower than even during the 1930s famines, sometimes lower than 1K calories per head, durng massive and routine famines. All that time, Russia remained a "bread basket of Europe".

Simple protectionist measures - a refusal to sell the food - alleviated famines, stopped malnutrition. Very simple measures. No barriers and full-on trade with foreigners, who of course often maintained protectionist barriers, resulted in disaster.

You have a warped view of protectionism. I bet you think that the First World didn't use that to great effect to cause all this shit in the Second and Third World, however you think that protectnionism was NOT beneficial to the First World at the same time. That's ridiculous.

[Straha]

The Irish famine and extremely high food prices for british workers were bought on by the Corn laws

When Ireland experienced a famine in 1782-83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests; that export ban did not happen in the 1840s.

How fucking simple is that really? That's basic protectionism, a simple ban, a port closure. It helped.

I said I'd go to sleep. I lied. I'll go to bed in five minutes. Basic protectionism is also closing your harbours to other people's ships loaded with food to sell you goods on the cheap. It's rules which accomplished just that which helped trigger the Irish Famines in 1845-1846.

To address the point which Hemlock brought up. Yes, protectionism does work with some developing economies, sometimes. It's a tricky bitch to implement and half the time you end up screwing your own people just as much as you help them, a third of the time you end up wrecking your country and the rest it does help if applied in moderation. That being said my original "PROTECTIONISM DOESN'T WORK" comment was made when we were talking solely about modern day America. And I'll stand by that 110%, protectionism with the modern American economy ends up screwing America over and then screwing the rest of the world over. Neither of which are really desirable in my opinion.


And now, sleep.

[K. A. Pital]

Basic protectionism is also closing your harbours to other people's ships loaded with food to sell you goods on the cheap.

You're still having a simplistic view of affairs, then, because if domestic foods are already out of reach, price-wise, for the population so that it starves and malnourishes, imported foods won't be cheaper and still will result in starvation and malnourisment. Since if the food imports into that nation are cheaper than the food exported by the nation, why would the exporter nation be even successful at world food exports?

Go sleep.

[Straha]

Basic protectionism is also closing your harbours to other people's ships loaded with food to sell you goods on the cheap.

You're still having a simplistic view of affairs, then, because if domestic foods are already out of reach, price-wise, for the population so that it starves and malnourishes, imported foods won't be cheaper and still will result in starvation and malnourisment. Since if the food imports into that nation are cheaper than the food exported by the nation, why would the exporter nation be even successful at world food exports?

I was just about to turn my computer off. But no. I had to check this thread. Right.


Let's look at it like this. Let's suppose a poor country like Irelanistan has a per capita income of 600 credits.

Now in order to survive inside Irelanistan you have to pay 400 credits for domestic food, or 320 credits for imported food. Now domestic farmers (and voters) bitch. Nobody's buying their food because it's too expensive! That's not their fault, they work just as hard as the next guy, right? So the government puts a 100% tariff on all imported food. Now in order to buy imported food to survive people have to pay 620 credits so they all switch to buying imported food. Now lets say a blight hits Irelanistan and internal food production gets destroyed. So they all switch to go buy imported food, only because of the protectionist policies placed on them by the government they can't afford it. So they starve instead. Do I need to draw pictures for you Stas, or are you going to get it this time?

[Havok]

Basic protectionism is also closing your harbours to other people's ships loaded with food to sell you goods on the cheap.

You're still having a simplistic view of affairs, then, because if domestic foods are already out of reach, price-wise, for the population so that it starves and malnourishes, imported foods won't be cheaper and still will result in starvation and malnourisment. Since if the food imports into that nation are cheaper than the food exported by the nation, why would the exporter nation be even successful at world food exports?

I was just about to turn my computer off. But no. I had to check this thread. Right.


Let's look at it like this. Let's suppose a poor country like Irelanistan has a per capita income of 600 credits.

Now in order to survive inside Irelanistan you have to pay 400 credits for domestic food, or 320 credits for imported food. Now domestic farmers (and voters) bitch. Nobody's buying their food because it's too expensive! That's not their fault, they work just as hard as the next guy, right? So the government puts a 100% tariff on all imported food. Now in order to buy imported food to survive people have to pay 620 credits so they all switch to buying imported food. Now lets say a blight hits Irelanistan and internal food production gets destroyed. So they all switch to go buy imported food, only because of the protectionist policies placed on them by the government they can't afford it. So they starve instead. Do I need to draw pictures for you Stas, or are you going to get it this time?

Well in that situation, why wouldn't they just drop the tariff that wasn't a necessity any way. Just because it is enacted doesn't mean it is set in stone.

[K. A. Pital]

Do I need to draw pictures for you Stas, or are you going to get it this time?

Ridiculous strawman of the Irish famine.

Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.

Christine Kinealy, a University of Liverpool fellow and author of two texts on the famine, Irish Famine: This Great Calamity and A Death-Dealing Famine, writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon and ham actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland. However, the poor had no money to buy food and the government then did not ban exports.

Your strawman of domestic food production totally failing is wrong; it would be right if NO food were exported and people starved still, but it is not so.

Moreover, by installing a tax on foreign foods you actually force domestic industries to raise production because there's greater demand; if you don't, any price volatility from your foreign food supplier will result in starvation because your own food production is NOT DEVELOPED, and worse yet it's totally RUINED as a result of your goodwill policy.

[Straha]

You're still having a simplistic view of affairs, then, because if domestic foods are already out of reach, price-wise, for the population so that it starves and malnourishes, imported foods won't be cheaper and still will result in starvation and malnourisment. Since if the food imports into that nation are cheaper than the food exported by the nation, why would the exporter nation be even successful at world food exports?

I was just about to turn my computer off. But no. I had to check this thread. Right.


Let's look at it like this. Let's suppose a poor country like Irelanistan has a per capita income of 600 credits.

Now in order to survive inside Irelanistan you have to pay 400 credits for domestic food, or 320 credits for imported food. Now domestic farmers (and voters) bitch. Nobody's buying their food because it's too expensive! That's not their fault, they work just as hard as the next guy, right? So the government puts a 100% tariff on all imported food. Now in order to buy imported food to survive people have to pay 620 credits so they all switch to buying imported food. Now lets say a blight hits Irelanistan and internal food production gets destroyed. So they all switch to go buy imported food, only because of the protectionist policies placed on them by the government they can't afford it. So they starve instead. Do I need to draw pictures for you Stas, or are you going to get it this time?

Well in that situation, why wouldn't they just drop the tariff that wasn't a necessity any way. Just because it is enacted doesn't mean it is set in stone.

Ask Great Britain during the Irish Famine about their Corn Laws. Ask British colonial governors during the 18th century. Ask anyone advocating extreme protectionist import tariffs. Ask Pat Buchanan in the past ten years. Don't ask me why they're all idiots.

(This time I have an excuse. Old friend IMed me right as I was signing off. Now, if I post again in the next four to six hours, shoot me.)

[K. A. Pital]

Ask Great Britain during the Irish Famine about their Corn Laws.

Wait, fat old Great Britain din't suffer It had fun. Ireland, a net food exporter to Britain, starved.

[Straha]

Do I need to draw pictures for you Stas, or are you going to get it this time?

Ridiculous strawman of the Irish famine.

Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.

Christine Kinealy, a University of Liverpool fellow and author of two texts on the famine, Irish Famine: This Great Calamity and A Death-Dealing Famine, writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon and ham actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland. However, the poor had no money to buy food and the government then did not ban exports.

Your strawman of domestic food production totally failing is wrong; it would be right if NO food were exported and people starved still, but it is not so.

Moreover, by installing a tax on foreign foods you actually force domestic industries to raise production because there's greater demand; if you don't, any price volatility from your foreign food supplier will result in starvation because your own food production is NOT DEVELOPED, and worse yet it's totally RUINED as a result of your goodwill policy.

Bloody hell. If you're going to quote the Wikipedia article at least go down the rest of the way. I'll cull excerpts from some books I have tomorrow for you, but from Austin Bourke

it is beyond question that the deficiency arising from the loss of the potato crop in 1846 could not have been met by the simple expedient of prohibiting the export of grain from Ireland.

[Pu-239]

I really do think he's pandering when it comes to protectionism, as it's a reality that the Democratic candidate has to pander to unions, etc. Hillary does it too, she's just less effective at it due to NAFTA (plus she doesn't need to as much).

NAFTAgate was a plus in my eyes, although it didn't help him politically in Ohio. And the fact that he's pandering does make you wonder what else is insincere (but again, everyone does it, see gas holiday).

Still voting for him since he's the least objectionable compared to the other two on various other issues.

[Havok]

Do I need to draw pictures for you Stas, or are you going to get it this time?

Ridiculous strawman of the Irish famine.

Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.

Christine Kinealy, a University of Liverpool fellow and author of two texts on the famine, Irish Famine: This Great Calamity and A Death-Dealing Famine, writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon and ham actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland. However, the poor had no money to buy food and the government then did not ban exports.

Your strawman of domestic food production totally failing is wrong; it would be right if NO food were exported and people starved still, but it is not so.

Moreover, by installing a tax on foreign foods you actually force domestic industries to raise production because there's greater demand; if you don't, any price volatility from your foreign food supplier will result in starvation because your own food production is NOT DEVELOPED, and worse yet it's totally RUINED as a result of your goodwill policy.

Bloody hell. If you're going to quote the Wikipedia article at least go down the rest of the way. I'll cull excerpts from some books I have tomorrow for you, but from Austin Bourke

it is beyond question that the deficiency arising from the loss of the potato crop in 1846 could not have been met by the simple expedient of prohibiting the export of grain from Ireland.

Head or gut?

[The Spartan]

Obama. McCain is just Bush-lite and I'd rather not have four more years (or worse, of the same.

[Coyote]

Protectionism is certainly selfish, but it does work. It can also be useful, if free trade means bringing in items that are harmful, or making your workers compete in an unfair contest against, say, slave labor.

And Straha, your initial rejection of Obama had nothing to do with protectionism, it was because you felt that his followers were Kool-aid sipping moonbats.

Obama has priorities about terrorism that I like; putting more effort into the Afghanistan/Pakistan Where's Waldo Bin-Laden front; he's against torture... he's got substance. I am the first to admit that a lot of his followers are, indeed, first-time idealogues, but it is unfair to dismiss them all that way.

I was open-minded about McCain for awhile, but as he sucked up to the religious right I got quite disillusioned, and when he flip-flopped on torture I'd had quite enough.

[The Spartan]

Sorry for the late edit: In my post above that should be an 8 followed by a ) not a sunglasses smiley.

[[R_H]]

I'd probably vote for Obama if I was an American voter. I wouldn't vote for Hillary or McCain, that's for sure.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Okay, Straha, so Obama has some inarticulate/dumb supporters. How is he the worse candidate, according to reasonable benchmarks for judging them?

I disagree strongly with his standpoint on the economy, pulling out of NAFTA and his fight for, as his website so misleadingly puts it, "Fair Trade" (read: Protectionist policies designed to fuck over foreign countries and "protect" American jobs.) And his Social Security and Healthcare policies stink to high fucking hell to me.

That is somehow a greater thread to the American polity than endless foriegn adventures in the Middle East, sticking to Iraq, across-the-board secrecy and corruption, and extremely poor economic policy?

How is it wrong to place trade restrictions that force foriegn countries to make up the difference? Right now they profit from the fact that quite frankly, they are authoritarian states with no accountability to their populace and therefore can abuse human, labor, and property rights at will in order to drive down the cost of labor? The United States cannot compete directly without betraying fundamental principles of equality of opportunity and popular soveriegnty. I, unlike many, do not think endless and slavish obsequience to "the market" is more important than social welfare. His health care policies may not be as good as foriegn states, but McCain's open admission that health care should be like "college" - i.e., where only the well-off and the very special exceptions can afford the decent brand of it? I suppose you're comfortable with an endless escalation of costs and the pricing out of a huge percentage of Americans.

If I thought Obama would be moderately competent otherwise and if his method of campaigning (All hail the Obamessiah!) didn't disgust me to no end I could live with maybe voting for him. But as it stands I'd much rather anyone else in the race to be in the job except for him.

Moderately competent otherwise? Compared to McCain? You're obviously a Republitard. Anyway, his method of campaigning at least sincerely calls for a sea change in the political climate of the United States. McCain will bring another four years of record deficits, increasing unaffordability in every aspect of American life for the middle and working class, more class inequity, more war, and no preparation for energy or environmental needs.

I see your criteria for election seem to be based purely on a.) what will help rich people in Wall Street, and b.) cynicism over the political process. Obama and his supporters call for change, and your reaction is to distrust and go with the alternative which does not even make a sincere effort at pretense of reform?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Also, watching this clown debate with a shrewd economist and historian like Stas is hilarious. Especially an American, which championed the "American System" as pioneered by Hamilton and others, to develop American industry and manufacturing at home.

[Patrick Degan]

If I thought Obama would be moderately competent otherwise and if his method of campaigning (All hail the Obamessiah!) didn't disgust me to no end I could live with maybe voting for him. But as it stands I'd much rather anyone else in the race to be in the job except for him.

And Sen. Obama proclaimed himself a new messiah... when, exactly?

[SirNitram]

Because I do not take active and enthusiastic supporters as signs of a messiah complex, Obama.

McCain is the man who wants another Middle East war, possibly several more. His economic plans will slash jobs, make roads less reliable, raise medical prices, and continue to bankrupt the country while the military is pushed beyond the breaking point.

In short, duh.

[K. A. Pital]

Especially an American, which championed the "American System" as pioneered by Hamilton and others, to develop American industry and manufacturing at home.

I'm always amazed at how immensely the First World profited off protectionism (while forbidding that others do it, thereby ruining their economies), and still people in the First World say "protectionism is stupid" when their entier wealth is created by protectionism and superior wealth accumulation done by their very governments.

...it is beyond question that the deficiency arising from the loss of the potato crop in 1846 could not have been met by the simple expedient of prohibiting the export of grain from Ireland.

Corn laws were the manufacture of Britain, Ireland's doomsayer in the situation, and are frankly irrelevant here aren't they? Ireland did not restrict "imports" of food from Britain mainland itself; it's people were just unable to buy food. Did Britain, the protectionist architect, itself suffer a famine as a result of Corn Laws? Tell me about it.

[Elfdart]

There's a great book called Bad Samaritans that shows so-called "free trade" to be a scam. South Korea used to have a standard of living worse than Sub-Saharan African countries, but now it's an industrial giant with a rising standard of living. They didn't advance like that by opening their country to cheap, subsidized imports.

Truthdig

[Coyote]

I'm always amazed at how immensely the First World profited off protectionism (while forbidding that others do it, thereby ruining their economies), and still people in the First World say "protectionism is stupid" when their entier wealth is created by protectionism and superior wealth accumulation done by their very governments...

I think most First World citizens can see how protectionism affects others and feel that it is "bad", but they don't really make the connection that protectionism is how they got to be First Worlders. At least in America, "ancient history" means the Reagan era, and many feel that they got to First World status by being more clever than "those unfortunate little brown folk" or blessed by more abundant resources and the will to use them with discipline. Or because God favors them. And so on.

They don't realize that while it can be said that their own cleverness in building themselves up was part of it, their cleverness in undercutting others played a major, major role.