[Samseau]

(09-13-2015 11:07 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I used to think like you, but now I understand things differently.

Then may you change your mind again

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The downsides to protectionism is that a country's consumers need to pay Holden and its employees more money.

The downside is they need to pay the government more money via the tariffs. Most cars purchased aren't going to be Holden. Also yes, they have no choice but to feed the Holden parasites.

Again, not true, and notice you failed to answer my objection that Holden still must compete against other Australian auto-makers. Therefore competition still exists.

Quote:

(09-13-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The upside to protectionism is that Australia has it's own auto-maker, and if war breaks out they will be able to produce their own vehicles without relying on other potentially hostile neighbors. Moreover, Holden's employees will be men who keep the knowledge of automaking, which means high paid laborers who have families and provide valuable technical knowledge to future generations of Australians.

When you consider the upsides against the downsides, protectionism against foreign intervention makes a lot of sense. What's more important: saving money or building a strong population with healthy birthrates and a talented workforce?
...
Moreover, while protectionism does prevent native industries from facing competitive pressures from abroad, as long as there is still free-trade inside of a country's borders then one could always argue, "If Holden sucks so badly then why don't other Australians make their own auto company?" In theory protectionism should still allow for competitive pressures from domestic markets.

Protectionism removes competitive stresses. It makes for a retarded workforce who can only produce junk, and who's wages have to pay for that junk at unaffordable prices. Without protectionism, Australian businesses are formed based on the profit motive. Capital goes into projects that businessmen feel can be productive. If some businessmen can think of a way to beat foreign manufacturers using local resources, they do so. They focus their capital on the country's strengths, not on it's weaknesses, strengthening the country overall. Protectionism is to a country what welfare is to a man.

You're not citing protectionism, you're citing a complete lack of competition. Notice you how talk about USSR at the end?

Quote:

Protectionism makes the country 'self-sufficient' in the same way the USSR was 'self-sufficient'. It is a terrible thing.

You didn't comprehend anything I said. USSR used subsidies and directly picked winners and losers in their state industry. I support competition WITHIN a nation's borders and not from without, and I cited the numerous social benefits to justify this practice.

The problem with Austrian economics is that it's bluepill. It doesn't understand that men need jobs at home or there will be no families. It doesn't matter if they are the "best" at something or not. Competition should be encouraged amongst members of the same country to promote fitness but not from abroad.

America became strong on tariffs from 1780's-1900's. Birthrates and marriages were high.
Britain used Mercantilism and became ultra wealthy. Birthrates and marriages were high.
China today has used tariffs and it's become the second richest country in the world between 1970 to the present. Birthrates would be high if not for one child policy.

It's obvious Austrian economists are wrong on this because they fail to consider the social implications of globalization smashing the workforce and rendering men unfit to work. Austrian economists just assume people are going to reproduce like lab rats without any understanding of male-female dynamics. This is no surprise - the average economist is a huge beta male.