We all pay the price for protectionism

Damn, Phil must be old. I was friends with his son....I attended PG's prez announcement back in the mid 90s. Good article. It is disturbing to see both parties embrace protectionism. JOBS JOBS JOBS!!!


https://www.wsj.com/opinion/we-all-...ctionism-f0e5e771?mod=commentary_article_pos1


Since Adam Smith debunked mercantilism in “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), the political appeal of trade protectionism has centered on its ability to benefit a privileged few special interests while spreading costs across society. Yet as the global economy has become more integrated, the cost of granting special favors through such policies has exploded. Each job created by recent tariffs on washing machines and steel has cost the U.S. economy an estimated $820,000 and $900,000, respectively. Tariffs imposed in the name of revitalizing American manufacturing have, over six years, been followed by slightly decreased manufacturing output, reductions in the percentage of the nonfarm labor force employed in manufacturing, and significantly higher trade deficits.

Sidestepping the economic logic and evidence that trade and private markets fuel growth and higher living standards, protectionists and industrial planners are trying to change the terms of the debate. Disciples on the right and left argue for policies that promote not efficiency, consumer benefit and economic growth, but rather jobs as ends in themselves. American Compass’s Oren Cass expresses this new mantra when he states that economic policy should emphasize “a healthy labor market rather than merely rising consumption.” Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer adds that “Americans are producers first and consumers second.”

On the surface, their argument is appealing. Jobs are at least as important as consumption. But this raises an age-old question: Who decides which jobs to promote? In attempting to answer, it becomes clear that the new mantra is the same old siren song.

Politicians who advocate focusing on jobs propose that we allow government to direct how labor is employed, how capital is invested, and which goods and services are made available to consumers. That concept isn’t exactly novel: Allowing the “best and brightest” to choose such arrangements has been tried and rejected for eons. The idea of letting those who earn their incomes by the sweat of their brows decide how to spend their own money is relatively new and revolutionary.

 

not sure I follow. A tariff protected supply chain of what? Everything? That would hurt national security.
1. we'd have less wealth
2. our industries would become less efficient
3. we would cede mkt share to our "enemies" as we are doing
4. a single supply line is dreadfully risky. Free trade usually creates a supply lattice. diversity reduces risk. looked on a bag of walmart trail mix....ingredients come from as many as 17 countries.
5. free trade promotes peace

 

what does that have to do with tariffs?

 

The Candlemakers' Petition

We candlemakers are suffering from the unfair competition of a foreign rival. This foreign manufacturer of light has such an advantage over us that he floods our domestic markets with his product. And he offers it at a fantastically low price. The moment this foreigner appears in our country, all our customers desert us and turn to him. As a result, an entire domestic industry is rendered completely stagnant. And even more, since the lighting industry has countless ramifications with other native industries, they, too, are injured. This foreign manufacturer who competes against us without mercy is none other than the sun itself!

Here is our petition: Please pass a law ordering the closing of all windows, skylights, shutters, curtains, and blinds — that is, all openings, holes, and cracks through which the light of the sun is able to enter houses. This free sunlight is hurting the business of us deserving manufacturers of candles. Since we have always served our country well, gratitude demands that our country ought not to abandon us now to this unequal competition.

We hope that you gentlemen will not regard our petition as mere satire, or refuse it without at least hearing our reasons in support of it.

First, if you make it as difficult as possible for the people to have access to natural light, and thus create an increased demand for artificial light, will not all domestic manufacturers be stimulated thereby?

For example, if more tallow is consumed, naturally there must be more cattle and sheep. As a result, there will also be more meat, wool, and hides. There will even be more manure, which is the basis of agriculture.

Next, if more oil is consumed for lighting, we shall have extensive olive groves and rape fields.

Also, our wastelands will be covered with pines and other resinous trees and plants. As a result of this, there will be numerous swarms of bees to increase the production of honey. In fact, all branches of agriculture will show an increased development.

The same applies to the shipping industry. The increased demand for whale oil will then require thousands of ships for whale fishing. In a short time, this will result in a navy capable of upholding the honor of our country and gratifying the patriotic sentiments of the candlemakers and other persons in related industries.

The manufacturers of lighting fixtures — candlesticks, lamps, candelabra, chandeliers, crystals, bronzes, and so on — will be especially stimulated. The resulting warehouses and display rooms will make our present-day shops look poor indeed.

The resin collectors on the heights along the seacoast, as well as the coal miners in the depths of the earth, will rejoice at their higher wages and increased prosperity. In fact, gentlemen, the condition of every citizen of our country — from the wealthiest owner of coal mines to the poorest seller of matches — will be improved by the success of our petition.

Translated and slightly condensed by Dean Russell from Selected Works of Frederic Bastiat, Volume 1. Paris: Guillaumin, 1863. pp. 58-59.

 

Yep. That's protectionism for you. It's bad shit. & our protectionism encourages it. If you have good free trade relations, you have a lot of healthy ways to address these problems.