(originally posted here∞)

Lobbying for protectionism will fix the problem (Admiral Falcon et al.). You deserve a job because you're an American (Versa, a_non_moose). Unions can create wealth (Jemplayer).

Let's bring out all the myths at once!

macFanDave sizes up the situation rather well. However, he draws precisely the wrong conclusion: IT does <i>not</i> want to become the next agriculture or pharmaceutical industry. Artificially propping them up just means the eventual downfall will be that much worse, whether it's due to WTO pressure, reciprocal protectionism in Europe, brain "refill" in developing countries, or what have you. In the meantime, it's the folks at the top reaping the biggest benefits of corporate welfare.

The lesson of 400 years of global trade is unmistakably clear: the freer the trade, the greater the mutual benefit. Britain circa 1914 saw the vast majority of its traditional industries outsourced, its trade monopoly evaporated, and its tariffs rendered largely ineffective...and backed by an enormous trade / GDP ratio, was the strongest economy until the war.

The law of competitive advantage, if current events haven't made it abundantly clear, implies this: if American companies don't outsource, they will soon experience direct competition from foreign companies building on their domestic resources. Some of you might cheer as corporate leaders topple along with their employees, but this situation is not desireable regardless.

If we want to compromise, Happysin gives a good standard that can benefit people on both sides of the ocean. I might listen to an argument that temporary protectionism allows industries to restructure, but (1) I've never seen "temporary" laws stay as such once the welfare teat meets the lobbying hand (2) I've never seen companies take said opportunity to undergo (expensive) remolding; I'd be especially skeptical in these days of short-term gains. In short, I don't buy it.


Back to CollectedWritings