Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (240623)	3/21/2002 1:12:21 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Ok, how's this: Protectionism is a concept. It is great for economics class discussion, but the classroom discussion doesn't factor in the all the consequences in the real world. They gloss over that stuff, saying world politics and war will be taken care of by protectionist economics. Things don't work that way in real life...we are not in utopia, and steel is a vital industry. I am not against protectionism in rare temporary circumstances, but for now and always, the U.S. is better served by avoiding it wherever possible. In a few hundred or a few thousand years, the real world consequences of protectionism will remain as negative as they are today. Dan B

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (240623)	3/23/2002 5:59:33 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

>> Freetrade is a concept. It is great for economics class discussion, but classroom discussion doesn't factor in world politics and war << yes, economists haven't quite figured out how to value culture in their fancy smancy economic equations. that's why tariffs don't make sense to them. perhaps that explains why even though most all economists preach free trade, politicians almost always employ tariffs when faced with the reality of running a country. it is not unlike regulation of the economy. i'm sure economists will tell you that the more laissez-faire an economy is, the more efficient it will be--except common sense dictates that some government regulation is needed to prevent enron like abuses. well tariffs are a useful way to regulate international commerce just like we have regulation for our national economy. >> I am not against freetrade for some things << neither am i. saying you're for free trade is like saying you're for peace. a noble goal, but you don't lay down your weapons and let others take advantage of you. of course we should strive for free trade with our trading partners who share the same type of standards we do. canada is a good example. they share similar standards of living and environmental policies as we do. places like china and mexico are totally different.