Hi,

I'm new to using forums and aren't really sure what to say. But I do have a question concerning an ecconomics assignment for yr 11. I have found it hard to find information about it and would be very greatful if someone could help me out. Here it is:
"which protectionist policy has had the biggest impact on global and domestic economies, and why?"

Much thanx.

Denzil, I’m sure this not a conventional answer and I don’t know what your teacher might make of it, but here is my opinion:

The most damaging protectionist policy in the world is that which protects continuous human expansionism. Just about every government in the developed and developing world facilitates the continuous growth in the level of human activity and hence of human impact on the planet.

‘Growth’ is their mantra. They are unable to separate the part of growth which encompasses things like better services, environmental protection and remediation and an increasing quality of life, from the part that encompasses continuous population growth, ever-bigger demand on our resource base and ever-bigger pressure on our environment.

Governments and vested-interest business lobbies have got the deal sewn up – ever-more people, ever-more industry, ever-bigger economic turnover….with no end in sight.

Those who can see that there are limits to this approach and who believe in treading lightly on this continent and this planet hardly get a look-in. Those who can see that our economy and our quality of life are very likely to come crashing down around us if we continue with this approach just become hugely frustrated at the bureaucratic brickwall.

The power base lies fairly and squarely where the big money is – with big business. Logical debate about our future wellbeing and the absolute necessity of achieving sustainability don’t count for a lot.

The political system in this country at least is set up so that small parties just can’t get anywhere.

The major political parties and vested-interest business lobbies are COLLUDING in the most awful way to keep us on a path directly towards economic and societal collapse and directly away from sustainability.

We are being PROTECTED from achieving sustainability!

Denzil
the most dangerous 'protectionist' policy, is that which protects regimes like China with its articificially LOW labor rates.. enforced by a one party state.. such that there is no level playing field for others in similar industries.

How is this protection occurring ? By NOT having punative tarrifs on goods FROM such countries...

WHY are punitive tarrifs NOT applied ? its called 'national interest' so that we can sell iron ore..coal.. gas..etc to them..and agrigultural products like wheat etc..

WHAT happens in those negotiations for 'national interest' ? Simple..the Chinese say they DON'T want any protection for Australian industries they have targeted to DESTROY. Of course they don't use the words 'destroy' but if you look at the clear meaning of their strategies.. that is the actual meaning.

When the IR Rally went down in Melbourne with about 50,000 unionists all yelling and blaming howard for their problems.. it was just after 100 people in a car parts company had lost their jobs to overseas suppliers. (read CHINA)...
Well..I stood on the steps of Flinders street station with a big hand held sign "BLAME CHINA.. tax slavery at customs"... most people agreed with me, except for one hard core communist woman who attacked me.

So...when it comes to 'protectionist' policies.. you need to ask what is being protected by the ABSENCE of punitive protection tarrifs.

i'm a great believer in protectionist policies. i wish oz were an extended family with a willingness to provide a decent living from every job, at whatever cost to middle class greed.

but it isn't, and we sweep unemployment and 'working poor' under the carpet. no matter, few people go to bed hungry, and they're losers anyway.

there is one protectionist policy very much alive and well: donate heavily to liberal party support, and you are protected very well from the consequences of your multi-million dollar scam of price fixing. google 'richard pratt' and 'visy'

like ludwig's rant about 'growth', this is probably not what your teacher had in mind. boaz is on subject at least, but unfortunately incapable of logic, the likely result of trying to make sense of scripture.

"which protectionist policy has had the biggest impact on global and domestic economies, and why?"

Denzil, on a global scale, that has been agricultural barriers and
subsidies, coughed up by EU and US taxpayers. That created a
major distortion of trade, affecting many third world economies too.

What was created in the EU, were butter mountains, wine lakes,
meat freezers overflowing etc. Cheap EU sugar, grain, meat,
etc, were then dumped at subidised prices, anywhere that would
take them. Many third world farmers could not compete of course,
so they suffered big time. Australian farmers have also suffered
hugely, as they cannot compete with EU and US taxpayers.

The whole idea of globalisation is that we look at our comparative
advantages and do what we are good at. Australia is good at
farming and mining, not bad at education services, a few other
niche industries.

China has been really beneficial to Australian consumers. Look at
the many things you can buy cheaply. If they were all made here,
what would they cost? You would be worse off, if your computer,
your plasma screen, your ipod, your mobile phone, were made in
Australia.

BD wants his widgets protected from China. But if I need his
widgets as part of my business of creating exports, his protection
would make me less competitive. So best to let him do something
that people actually want, at a globally competitive price.

Given our virtually full employment in Australia right now, we
can see that basically globalisation has worked to benefit
Australian consumers. Both the EU and US realise that their massive
subsidies to agriculture, have cost both their people and industries
bigtime, so are trying to change things.

But of course the political pressure of everyone wanting their
little patch of self interested protected, make it difficult

And yet Yabby, I read of the recent example of Malawi that for decades followed the mantra of the IMF and World Bank that said "no protection or subsidies for agriculture", and got nowhere, then finally decided that the only way out of its situation was to subsidize fertiliser for struggling farmers. Combined with a good rain year, it paid off: the country is now a net exporter of food, and making some economic headway. I'm not claiming that this is a long term solution, but the idea that all protection and subsidies are necessarily evil is not justified. Free markets are not perfect, and it's not unreasonable for a particular country to protect itself against inherent imbalances in the global playing field.

Yes, Australia has fared well so far from globalisation. But I wonder how many Americans think that being able to buy super cheap Chinese-manufactured toys and electronic gadgets has been worth the steady economic drain that has been created on its lower-middle and middle classes, traditionally dependent upon manufacturing?
I also wonder just how many of those toys and gadgets we'd buy if we were forced to walk through the factories and observe the worker conditions first. Even where conditions are quite good in the factories themselves, the pollution in the surrounding areas, and the living conditions of the workers is often beyond belief. This is where globalisation fails us, because those creating the market are not the ones putting up with the direct negative consequences. Now, import tariffs on imported Chinese goods aren't necessarily the best way to address the problem, but there are often sound justifications for their existence.