On "Protectionism"
from Twitter
My reply...
More to the point, the term “protectionism,” like so many others, is being abused. In the broadest sense, protectionism is any trade policy designed to protect domestic industry. However, this definition is so akin to common sense, it’s rarely used that way.
More often, “protectionism” refers to policies that tend to isolate the domestic market from the rest of the world. A basic tariff falls under this definition, as does cancelling a trade agreement. However, even this usage can’t parse whether such moves are justifiable.
Trump’s foreign trade policy, like that of virtually every other country and past president, is mixed. It may be more aggressive than usual for the US, but it still doesn’t compare to the horror-of-horrors, Smoot-Hawley.
Where “protectionism” is getting abused is twofold.
1) While characterizing trade renegotiation as protectionist is nominally accurate, any renegotiation where both parties didn’t try to improve their own standing would be a farce.
2) Trump’s steel and aluminum policy is plainly protectionist, no bones about it. Still, it is not remotely of the magnitude it is made out to be. It is very limited in scope and has a built-in exemption that is easy for most countries to meet.
Trump’s trade policy is aggressive, yes. That understandably makes some people nervous. However, it is not the isolationist (which is what critics want you to hear when they say “protectionist”) policy it is made out to be.
Notorious Augusto P (@GenAugustoP) Mar 30 2018
Protectionism isn't "crass." It's the American school economic principle that goverened the U.S. and was a staple of Republican party from Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln through McKinley, Coolidge and Reagan.
My reply...
More to the point, the term “protectionism,” like so many others, is being abused. In the broadest sense, protectionism is any trade policy designed to protect domestic industry. However, this definition is so akin to common sense, it’s rarely used that way.
More often, “protectionism” refers to policies that tend to isolate the domestic market from the rest of the world. A basic tariff falls under this definition, as does cancelling a trade agreement. However, even this usage can’t parse whether such moves are justifiable.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Trump’s foreign trade policy, like that of virtually every other country and past president, is mixed. It may be more aggressive than usual for the US, but it still doesn’t compare to the horror-of-horrors, Smoot-Hawley.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Where “protectionism” is getting abused is twofold.
1) While characterizing trade renegotiation as protectionist is nominally accurate, any renegotiation where both parties didn’t try to improve their own standing would be a farce.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
2) Trump’s steel and aluminum policy is plainly protectionist, no bones about it. Still, it is not remotely of the magnitude it is made out to be. It is very limited in scope and has a built-in exemption that is easy for most countries to meet.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Trump’s trade policy is aggressive, yes. That understandably makes some people nervous. However, it is not the isolationist (which is what critics want you to hear when they say “protectionist”) policy it is made out to be.
Comments
Post a Comment