There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Even interventionist economists like Paul Krugman strongly agree, and they have tried to explain why free trade is a good thing to an ignorant public. It is shameful that so many people feel obligated to opine strongly on a subject which they don't understand, causing bad policies to be enacted.
Protectionism makes society worse off. The policy you are proposing would make the world poorer.
>There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare
Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11.
It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are.
I think everyone agrees that outsourcing work to third world economies creates immense wealth in first world economies. We also know that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way to make useful heat. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of negative unintended consequences.
> I think everyone agrees that outsourcing work to third world economies creates immense wealth in first world economies.
It also creates wealth in those third world economies. In fact, they benefit the most.
> We also know that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way to make useful heat. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of negative unintended consequences.
Can you explain why you think this comparison is relevant?
Hollowing out the lower/middle class in those first world economies and forcing people into social welfare programs is a big unintended consequence here.
To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off by any standards first world upper class, everything else is a rounding error. Outsourcing is colonialism by another name.
> To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off
Wrong. Free trade benefits the poor the most. It is responsible for massive reductions in poverty at the global level, and is critical to the economic growth of developing countries. Trade barriers (particularly in agriculture) are a major source of harm to the world's poor:
That's not true, as I've already pointed out in my comments. The fact that you keep covering your ears and pretending this is not the case doesn't change reality.
Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11.
It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are.