Protectionism never works, regardless of whether it comes from the left or right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

It ultimately makes everybody poorer.

That is all.

[guillaumeb]

1. What never works is allowing rich sociopaths to run things.

Everyone ends up poorer.

[pecosbob]

4. Free market is a pretty great thing as long as everyone gets a seat at the table

when they don't, it's pretty much legalized rape.

[guillaumeb]

15. Agreed.

And the rich control the chairs.

[Girard442]

2. Protectionism is like peeing in the street.

If a limited number of people are allowed to pee in the street, it’s a handy timesaver for them.

If everybody pees in the streets, it just stinks.

[PETRUS]

3. What do you consider protectionism?

Patents and copyrights are protectionism.

But anyway, I don't think your statement is correct. Most national success stories (rapidly growing per capita GDP) involved industrial policies that would be considered protectionism. An economist who writes well about this topic (and in a way that's easy to understand) is Ha Joon Chang. I'd recommend reading his book "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism," or, if you don't want to tackle an entire book, chapter 7 of his book "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. There is a difference in protecting someone's work product and protectionism.

[PETRUS]

9. There is not a meaningful difference.

PhD economist Dean Baker has written extensively on this topic (you can find his thoughts in numerous articles at http://cepr.net/).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I will read it later.

Common sense suggests there is a difference in imposing a tariff on a nation involved in intellectual theft and imposing a tariff on a nation that exports bananas.

[PETRUS]

14. Please do.

To use an oblique analogy: any one cat is different from all other cats in some ways, but as a class they are still felines. I'm not trying to pick on you (I enjoy your posts and you seem like a decent person), but I do think you aren't entirely clear or correct on this.

[WeekiWater]

5. Often goes hand in hand with populism.

Left or right.

[denverbill]

6. Completely disagree.

The United States used tariffs and quotas from it's inception up until Reagan.

You can make the argument that tariffs might be too high or that they are unnecessary in certain situations but it's ludicrous to think that American workers need to compete with Central American and Asian countries who are paid so much less. The death of the American middle class started in the 80's and intensified with NAFTA and the WTO.

Trump is a moron who doesn't even understand how tariffs work and who applies them capriciously and thoughtlessly. America became the most powerful economy in the world while it imposed tariffs. The American middle class was certainly not poorer in the 1950's and 60's due to tariffs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. FDR's Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 reduced tariffs from 30% to 5%

[denverbill]

17. Why didn't they reduce them to 0%?

Seems to me like if they thought tariffs served no purpose they would have eliminated them altogether rather than just drastically reducing them.

That's my point. I don't think tariffs should necessarily be used to block trade, but they should certainly be used to protect American workers and industries in many cases.

[Adrahil]

11. I don't know if you've noticed, but the world has changed significantly since then.

We have a globally integrated economy. WE cannot manage international trade as if we live in isolated national economies that no longer exist. Transportation and communication advances has sparked a revolution. We can guide it, but we cannot deny deny it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. The rest of the world isn't going to allow our products in when we keep their products out.

A lot of our wealth was made on the backs of other people.

[Adrahil]

13. Absolutely....

It gets even messier when "domestic" products are assembled using foreign materials.

[denverbill]

16. The US changed a lot between 1790 and 1890, and 1890 and 1940, and 1940 and 1990.

We were largely a nation of farmers in 1790, but by 1890 had steel mills, railroads, and tons of other manufacturing. Tariffs played a part in that change by protecting fledgling American industries from foreign competition. There was a national interest in promoting our manufacturing industry and tariffs served that interest. We didn't want to depend on England or other foreign countries for guns or manufactured goods while we did nothing but ship them raw materials. We'd already fought two wars against England and it's not a particularly great idea to depend on a foreign country for the means to defend yourself. Capitalists in 1850 were no different from capitalists today. If an English gun-maker could bankrupt and American gun-maker by selling at below cost, they would. But lawmakers decided it was important to socially engineer our economic policies to protect manufacturing and promote industrial growth. And that continued right up to the Depression.

Tariffs may be less needed now, but to dismiss them as historical relics isn't good policy, unless you think all socialism is bad. Is it in the national interest to have steel manufacturing or should we just rely on China for all of our steel? Is it OK that all our computer chips are made in third world countries? Or our engineering and computer programming is being outsourced to India? Is it ok that there are no good jobs for people who 30 years ago might have been auto or steel workers, or worked at a TV manufacturing plant? That all those people might never be able to live the American dream, with a decent home, and retire in relative comfort? It wasn't considered outrageous in the 1950's that someone who worked in manufacturing could buy a home and car and send their kids to college, and retire with a pension.

I'm not saying tariffs are the answer to every economic problem, but they should be used when they can help.