David Cameron Against Protectionism

[Lone_Twin]

Maybe you just can't put your thoughts on paper in a legible manner - huh

Re-read your thread - I invite anyone to try but its like swimming in treacle.

Not an enjoyable experience at all.

Becuase it is too dificult for you to understand. Not my fault.

.

ST

[Guest vicmac64]

Becuase it is too dificult for you to understand. Not my fault.

.

ST

Because it doesn't make sense - I suspect your views (if I could ever really interpret them) are the same - they 'do not make sense'

[EUBanana]

Because it doesn't make sense - I suspect your views (if I could ever really interpret them) are the same - they 'do not make sense'

You still havn't told me why being punished by the government for buying a cheap Fiat is a good thing.

[KingBingo]

ST has put forward good valid argument. You're just condesending, dellusional and living in cloud cookoo land, were every indian and china man works in call centres or as financial analysts, driving porsches, living the high life, all thanks to globalisation.

Admit it, it's flawed and we need something better.

I never said that. I know its a gradual process. Many of the early benifts are already very clear.

If your holding out for a economic system that instantly turns all 3rd world people into porches driving financiers then I suspect your be waiting a long time.

I'll just leave you be. Your not even stopping to think about what I say, your just immediately firing out more inane caricatures of what I said because you are unable to provide the slightest coherent rational argument.

But then again, it would be impossible for me to reason you out of a position that you did not arrive at by reason in the first place.

[domo]

If protectionism is that good why not fence off anything above the m25? In fact why not tariff anything carried from one town to the next. By your logic the world would just become more and more prosperous. Seems like your just scared of anyone with a funny accent.

[Guest vicmac64]

You still havn't told me why being punished by the government for buying a cheap Fiat is a good thing.

You are not being punished - you make your choice, you might pay more for that fiat if it is not made in the UK. Your alternative would be to purchase a car made in the UK, made by your fellow British workers. Big deal.

[Lone_Twin]

ST has put forward good valid argument. You're just condesending, dellusional and living in cloud cookoo land, were every indian and china man works in call centres or as financial analysts, driving porsches, living the high life, all thanks to globalisation.

Admit it, it's flawed and we need something better.

I've decended into rudeness but only as a last resort sorry

.

My open question to you regarding the third world workers is what would you have them doing instead?

Do you think they were happier as subsistance farmers?

If they were, why arent they still doing it?

Do you think their previous economies could have supported the population they have now?

If not should they have enforced birth control or let the population be controled by natural forces?

.

ST

[Guest vicmac64]

If protectionism is that good why not fence off anything above the m25? In fact why not tariff anything carried from one town to the next. By your logic the world would just become more and more prosperous. Seems like your just scared of anyone with a funny accent.

Seems to me that you are the one that is introducing racism, perhaps you have a problem with being British. Indeed this is the same old tactic used every time somebody speaks up... accuse them of being a racist.. Such is the benign nature of Globalist thinking. NOT

[KingBingo]

Because it doesn't make sense - I suspect your views (if I could ever really interpret them) are the same - they 'do not make sense'

I remember once at university I went and sat in on a post graduate physics lecture. I though it might be like reading a Stephen Hawkins book, it wasn't. It was so far over my head I couldn't start to understand it.

Yet the essential difference between someone like myself and someone such as yourself. Is that I knew it was me that was deficient. I didn't stand up and start screaming at the lecturer that his theory's were delusional nonsense. That the lecture was like swimming in treacle.

[Guest vicmac64]

I've decended into rudeness but only as a last resort sorry

.

My open question to you regarding the third world workers is what would you have them doing instead?

Do you think they were happier as subsistance farmers?

If they were, why arent they still doing it?

Do you think their previous economies could have supported the population they have now?

If not should they have enforced birth control or let the population be controled by natural forces?

.

ST

Its really none of my concern what they do - why should it be? The problems you have listed are their problems - you surely wouldn't want a Libertarian who believes in small government to go interfering in other nations affairs?

We have enough problems of our own to solve - example - a bankrupt fraudulent economy and job losses mounting by the minute. The British people don't want our politicians running the world, we want them running the United Kingdom and its economy - (in as far as it is able to) - in an orderly trustworthy manner.

Edited February 4, 2009 by vicmac64

[Guest vicmac64]

I remember once at university I went and sat in on a post graduate physics lecture. I though it might be like reading a Stephen Hawkins book, it wasn't. It was so far over my head I couldn't start to understand it.

Yet the essential difference between someone like myself and someone such as yourself. Is that I knew it was me that was deficient. I didn't stand up and start screaming at the lecturer that his theory's were delusional nonsense. That the lecture was like swimming in treacle.

Well read the article and since you have drawn comparisons to your lecturer -

Don't confuse the incapability of having original thought as being smart. How do you know it is not your lecturer that was delusional? Did you ever think of testing his theories or yours for that matter.

Edited February 4, 2009 by vicmac64

[KingBingo]

Its really none of my concern what they do - why should it be? The problems you have listed are their problems - you surely wouldn't want a Libertarian who believes in small government to go interfering in other nations affairs?

We have enough problems of our own to solve - example - a bankrupt fraudulent economy and job losses mounting by the minute. The British people don't want our politicians running the world, we want them running the United Kingdom and its economy - (in as far as it is able to) - in an orderly trustworthy manner.

Ok, so lets turn this around. Why not have protectionism on the town level.

Can you explain to me why free trade at the national level is better than protectionism at the town level?

[Guest vicmac64]

I remember once at university I went and sat in on a post graduate physics lecture. I though it might be like reading a Stephen Hawkins book, it wasn't. It was so far over my head I couldn't start to understand it.

Yet the essential difference between someone like myself and someone such as yourself. Is that I knew it was me that was deficient. I didn't stand up and start screaming at the lecturer that his theory's were delusional nonsense. That the lecture was like swimming in treacle.

Perhaps you are as out of depth on economics and politics as physics.....

[Lone_Twin]

Its really none of my concern what they do - why should it be? The problems you have listed are their problems - you surely wouldn't want a Libertarian who believes in small government to go interfering in other nations affairs?

We have enough problems of our own to solve - example - a bankrupt fraudulent economy and job losses mounting by the minute. The British people don't want our politicians running the world, we want them running the United Kingdom and its economy - (in as far as it is able to) - in an orderly trustworthy manner.

Sorry I wasnt asking you the question.

.

You have so far described yourself as a nationalistic, protectionist libertarian in favour of small government...ergo an IDIOT.

.

ST

[Guest vicmac64]

Ok, so lets turn this around. Why not have protectionism on the town level.

Can you explain to me why free trade at the national level is better than protectionism at the town level?

Now you are showing why you couldn't understand that physics teacher.

I haven't argued for anything other than protectionism on a national lever, if you want to argue for something as ludicrous as protectionism on a regional or council level be my guest...

I never went to University and after reading this post I'm glad I didn't.

[domo]

Seems to me that you are the one that is introducing racism, perhaps you have a problem with being British. Indeed this is the same old tactic used every time somebody speaks up... accuse them of being a racist.. Such is the benign nature of Globalist thinking. NOT

The thing is I'm not, I'm an individual, which is why I don't fall into the trap of shoddy collectivist thinking. So are you going to answer the question? Why not stop me buying from a Scotsman? Won't that create even more jobs?

[Guest vicmac64]

Sorry I wasnt asking you the question.

.

You have so far described yourself as a nationalistic, protectionist libertarian in favour of small government...ergo an IDIOT.

.

ST

Awe sticks and stones - you only devalue your own arguments. Thank you

[KingBingo]

I haven't argued for anything other than protectionism on a national lever, if you want to argue for something as ludicrous as protectionism on a regional or council level be my guest...

Ok, but please explain to me why protectionism at the town or regional level is ludicrous.

[Guest vicmac64]

The thing is I'm not, I'm an individual, which is why I don't fall into the trap of shoddy collectivist thinking. So are you going to answer the question? Why not stop me buying from a Scotsman? Won't that create even more jobs?

Why would I stop you buying from anyone - you must think I'm English - I'm not. But I am British and proud to be so.

[threesixty]

The problem here is that everyone is so "absolute" about each option rather than finding

a comfortable middle ground. Obviously protectionism taken to it's fullest extent is

suicidal. Unless you want to live like Cubans you do have to trade.

However, just like all good things in life "globalization" has been allowed to go to it's

extreme as well. And on the whole it doesnt work when taken to the extremes that the

British government have taken it.

Global trade to obtain goods that your country can never produce is not a bad thing. We want

bananas but cant produce them, so we give a country with a better climate some goods that

we make that they dont have and swap for the bananas that they produce.

No problems there.

The problem is when both countries make the same product. Tactically it might make sense to

buy that good from another country (maybe they make it cheaper, better, who knows..). You

can now use the saving of money/resource/time and focus on something else that you do make better.

Great so far...

But what about the country's long term strategic position?

What if the goods that other countries make are the core goods that a modern nation

needs to survive? Cars, Machinery, electronics, medical goods etc.. What about energy?

What if there ever becomes a situation where these "core" products dont actually get

delivered to your country. There could be political/economic/military type issues that prevent

country "A" from recieving these core products from country "B".

Strategically a country with any common sense would have a contingency in place.

They would not allow a situation where say .. 80% of the goods it consumes comes from outside

of it's shores. Surely, no modern powerful country would ever let that happen! :-)

Japan is an example of an economy that even in a heavy reccession has enjoyed far better

living standards than most countries. The Japanese have a "culturaly" closed of economy and

prefer to support their own manafacturing efforts. Even when foreign products are technically

better (e.g. iphone. xbox 360 etc..)

Balanced protecionism is essential to protect the interests of British citzens. It doesn't have

to be a statute of law either. Just that Britain should have invested in making industries

like cars and electronics successful and more competetive than foreign products. Instead

of lending children 20K to do a history degree and then work as bankers, shuffling psuedo

money around whilst wearing Jimmy Choo's!

Finally, morally the government cannot take public money, my money, and then spend it in

a way where foreign companies benefit and not us. That is inherently evil in my opinion.

They have a duty to make sure that the vast majority of money that they have borrowed from

me and my childern (and their children) is used to buy products designed and manufactured in

the UK. I dont give a monkeys whether the shareholders (vast majority foreign) are not

getting value for money, we should be looking to have full employment in this country. Not

just a rich few saying how rich they have become because they employ programmers from

overseas.

In the old days countries would just invade each other over trade issues. Who had the biggest

guns won the wars and eventually the trade. We live in a different era now, countries should

be far more long term about the hazards of not having the vast amount of core products

they need produced at home. You cant just go an rob some other poor sap's country to get

what you want anymore.. well at least no officially!!! :-)

Can the UK stop being the "worlds filthiest whore" and start showing some decorum? Are there

any more "wholes" to penetrate Miss UK? Can she start selling her core assets to the highest

bidder? Answers on a post card please...

[domo]

Why would I stop you buying from anyone - you must think I'm English - I'm not. But I am British and proud to be so.

Infallible logic really.

[Guest vicmac64]

Ok, but please explain to me why protectionism at the town or regional level is ludicrous.

Because it would and could never be in the British National Interest, it dissolves the power of the people as a nation.

There are a million other reasons why not but the one above dictates why.

eg Feudalism, hunger in the cities, breakup of the UK, misallocation of resources used to control this, more red tape and on and on and on.

[domo]

The problem here is that everyone is so "absolute" about each option rather than finding

a comfortable middle ground. Obviously protectionism taken to it's fullest extent is

suicidal. Unless you want to live like Cubans you do have to trade.

However, just like all good things in life "globalization" has been allowed to go to it's

extreme as well. And on the whole it doesnt work when taken to the extremes that the

British government have taken it.

Global trade to obtain goods that your country can never produce is not a bad thing. We want

bananas but cant produce them, so we give a country with a better climate some goods that

we make that they dont have and swap for the bananas that they produce.

No problems there.

The problem is when both countries make the same product. Tactically it might make sense to

buy that good from another country (maybe they make it cheaper, better, who knows..). You

can now use the saving of money/resource/time and focus on something else that you do make better.

Great so far...

But what about the country's long term strategic position?

What if the goods that other countries make are the core goods that a modern nation

needs to survive? Cars, Machinery, electronics, medical goods etc.. What about energy?

What if there ever becomes a situation where these "core" products dont actually get

delivered to your country. There could be political/economic/military type issues that prevent

country "A" from recieving these core products from country "B".

Strategically a country with any common sense would have a contingency in place.

They would not allow a situation where say .. 80% of the goods it consumes comes from outside

of it's shores. Surely, no modern powerful country would ever let that happen! :-)

Japan is an example of an economy that even in a heavy reccession has enjoyed far better

living standards than most countries. The Japanese have a "culturaly" closed of economy and

prefer to support their own manafacturing efforts. Even when foreign products are technically

better (e.g. iphone. xbox 360 etc..)

Balanced protecionism is essential to protect the interests of British citzens. It doesn't have

to be a statute of law either. Just that Britain should have invested in making industries

like cars and electronics successful and more competetive than foreign products. Instead

of lending children 20K to do a history degree and then work as bankers, shuffling psuedo

money around whilst wearing Jimmy Choo's!

Finally, morally the government cannot take public money, my money, and then spend it in

a way where foreign companies benefit and not us. That is inherently evil in my opinion.

They have a duty to make sure that the vast majority of money that they have borrowed from

me and my childern (and their children) is used to buy products designed and manufactured in

the UK. I dont give a monkeys whether the shareholders (vast majority foreign) are not

getting value for money, we should be looking to have full employment in this country. Not

just a rich few saying how rich they have become because they employ programmers from

overseas.

In the old days countries would just invade each other over trade issues. Who had the biggest

guns won the wars and eventually the trade. We live in a different era now, countries should

be far more long term about the hazards of not having the vast amount of core products

they need produced at home. You cant just go an rob some other poor sap's country to get

what you want anymore.. well at least no officially!!! :-)

Can the UK stop being the "worlds filthiest whore" and start showing some decorum? Are there

any more "wholes" to penetrate Miss UK? Can she start selling her core assets to the highest

bidder? Answers on a post card please...

So by what method do you advocate doing this?

Stealing from productive industries to support inefficient ones, thus weakening the economy overall?

[Guest vicmac64]

The problem here is that everyone is so "absolute" about each option rather than finding

a comfortable middle ground. Obviously protectionism taken to it's fullest extent is

suicidal. Unless you want to live like Cubans you do have to trade.

However, just like all good things in life "globalization" has been allowed to go to it's

extreme as well. And on the whole it doesnt work when taken to the extremes that the

British government have taken it.

Global trade to obtain goods that your country can never produce is not a bad thing. We want

bananas but cant produce them, so we give a country with a better climate some goods that

we make that they dont have and swap for the bananas that they produce.

No problems there.

The problem is when both countries make the same product. Tactically it might make sense to

buy that good from another country (maybe they make it cheaper, better, who knows..). You

can now use the saving of money/resource/time and focus on something else that you do make better.

Great so far...

But what about the country's long term strategic position?

What if the goods that other countries make are the core goods that a modern nation

needs to survive? Cars, Machinery, electronics, medical goods etc.. What about energy?

What if there ever becomes a situation where these "core" products dont actually get

delivered to your country. There could be political/economic/military type issues that prevent

country "A" from recieving these core products from country "B".

Strategically a country with any common sense would have a contingency in place.

They would not allow a situation where say .. 80% of the goods it consumes comes from outside

of it's shores. Surely, no modern powerful country would ever let that happen! :-)

Japan is an example of an economy that even in a heavy reccession has enjoyed far better

living standards than most countries. The Japanese have a "culturaly" closed of economy and

prefer to support their own manafacturing efforts. Even when foreign products are technically

better (e.g. iphone. xbox 360 etc..)

Balanced protecionism is essential to protect the interests of British citzens. It doesn't have

to be a statute of law either. Just that Britain should have invested in making industries

like cars and electronics successful and more competetive than foreign products. Instead

of lending children 20K to do a history degree and then work as bankers, shuffling psuedo

money around whilst wearing Jimmy Choo's!

Finally, morally the government cannot take public money, my money, and then spend it in

a way where foreign companies benefit and not us. That is inherently evil in my opinion.

They have a duty to make sure that the vast majority of money that they have borrowed from

me and my childern (and their children) is used to buy products designed and manufactured in

the UK. I dont give a monkeys whether the shareholders (vast majority foreign) are not

getting value for money, we should be looking to have full employment in this country. Not

just a rich few saying how rich they have become because they employ programmers from

overseas.

In the old days countries would just invade each other over trade issues. Who had the biggest

guns won the wars and eventually the trade. We live in a different era now, countries should

be far more long term about the hazards of not having the vast amount of core products

they need produced at home. You cant just go an rob some other poor sap's country to get

what you want anymore.. well at least no officially!!! :-)

Can the UK stop being the "worlds filthiest whore" and start showing some decorum? Are there

any more "wholes" to penetrate Miss UK? Can she start selling her core assets to the highest

bidder? Answers on a post card please...

We really have no self respect as a nation - your post is a good one, much better argued than mine. For a while I thought I was the only one to say that protectionism has a place in a nations armoury of tools to defend jobs its people and its economy.

[Guest vicmac64]

Infallible logic really.

And you - proud to be British or not?