| >This is nonsense economics, straight out of Donald Trumps playbook. That's a facile response. The truth is that tariffs and similar restrictions have been used by every major economic power on its way to the top, the US perhaps more than others: "Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism" (Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes, Bairoch)." [1] Of course once they got there, they suddenly find protectionism "not working" anymore, and other countries shouldn't use it -- like someone who got to the top kicks out the ladder he used lest others use it too. In other words, the interests of the 10% are taken as economic gospel (after all economists always belong to the 10% and cater to that crowd, especially anybody who's let anywhere near policy makers and top universities) -- and let the middle class and the bottom 30% be damned. >Not just "cheap gadgets" will be more expensive, everything will be, because the whole economy is intertwined in subtle ways. This makes everyone poorer, but it especially hurts those people that can afford the least. Everyone needs to be "poorer" when it comes to affording consumerism anyway (from smartphones to the tons of clothes [2]), and "richer" in affording rent, healthcare, education, job, and other such necessities, that is, the opposite of the trends for the last 30+ years. >If you have sweatshop-like conditions, which I don't think is the case here, then that is still a better alternative than whatever other jobs these people could've had instead - otherwise they would do those. The same could be said for child labor (better than the kids/families starving), and yet we outlawed that (at least in theory). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transforming-the-fashio... |
...because it's politically expedient, not because it makes economic sense.
> after all economists always belong to the 10% and cater to that crowd
Oh, 10%. Why not 5% or 15%? What happened to the 1%? How do you even know that is true? I mean, you don't, but throwing around percentages and ascribing motivations to that is somewhat hard to falsify.
Seriously, let's say I'm an economist and belong to "the 10%". Why should I cater to them? Why not cater to the 1%? Why not cater to the 90%? What's so great about the 10%?
> ...let the middle class and the bottom 30% be damned.
So, the middle class starts at 90% and goes down to 30%, therefore they make up 60%. None of them are economists and no economist is catering to their interests either. Just to get a broad picture here.
> Everyone needs to be "poorer" when it comes to affording consumerism anyway (from smartphones to the tons of clothes [2]), and "richer" in affording rent, healthcare, education, job, and other such necessities, that is, the opposite of the trends for the last 30+ years.
Got it, poor people shouldn't be able to afford smartphones and tons of clothes. But how exactly does protectionism help them afford these other things you mention? Presumably these people are going to all have jobs making smartphones and sewing clothes (which are now so expensive they themselves cannot afford them). But why would their wages be higher? Remember, as prices go up, demand goes down. Without demand, jobs get eliminated.
> The same could be said for child labor (better than the kids/families starving), and yet we outlawed that (at least in theory).
Child labor becomes illegal only as soon as that is feasible, it requires a certain amount of economic development. Indeed, it is better for a child to work than starve, don't you think? Child labor (depending on how you define it) is still par for the course in underdeveloped countries, even when it may not always be legal.