Nationalist Economics

[italic zero]

This ideology is divisive among both American parties, and I imagine many others around the world. Obviously it goes hand in hand with protectionism and labor laws but I'd like to focus on the idea itself.

Do you think that nationalist economics are inherently moral, immoral or neutral in the fact that they seem to place differing values on individuals from different countries solely based on nationality? Or do you disagree with this characterization of nationalist economics?

Inevitably this thread will diverge from the somewhat limited topic I've laid out, but please at least keep the focus on economics (and on change within the system, because I really don't care how happy everyone is going to be once you've abolished money and given every neighborhood a communal vegetable plot).

[Iskandar]

Nationalist economics are a paradox. They're often seen as socialist but nationalism in any shape or form contradicts the goals of many socialist ideologies.

Having said that, I don't think it's immoral at all for a nation to look out for its own citizens.

[Amit]

unless they cut off all major trade/research/collaboration with commerce from other countries, nationalist economies are just hypocritical

[Iskandar]

unless they cut off all major trade/research/collaboration with commerce from other countries, nationalist economies are just hypocritical
Nobody but an idiotic leadership would do that. It does happen, of course.

[Amit]

there's nothing wrong with moderate tariffs but the problem arises with one-way global commerce :-(

[Iskandar]

there's nothing wrong with moderate tariffs but the problem arises with one-way global commerce :-(
Agreed.

I'd also like to see an end to the thinking that nationalist economics vs. globalist economics represents a left-right dichotomy. Neither is necessarily left or right.

[italic zero]

there's nothing wrong with moderate tariffs but the problem arises with one-way global commerce :-(
How do you justify tariffs?

[Amit]

moderation of commerce as to not completely ruin a community

[Iskandar]

How do you justify tariffs?
Protecting domestic firms?

[lunchforthesky]

Wouldnt that be racism in your book, seen as you are saying one race is more deserved of prosperity than another.

[Iskandar]

Wouldnt that be racism in your book, seen as you are saying one race is more deserved of prosperity than another.
Well, it's favouring nations, not necessarily races.

[Efrim]

The purpose of a nation is to protect its citizens, so to some degree tariffs are perfectly moral.

[italic zero]

Tariffs favor nations at the direct expense of everyone else, which makes it different from most other functions of government.

EDIT: I just realized this is basically the same as the immigration debate.

[griftadan]

i don't really want to argue in terms of morality, i just think that naitonalist economic policies tend to lean towards inneffeciency.

[Smokey D]

Nationalist economics as it is traditionally understood make more people poor than they make people rich. I don't like them, and I think its hypocritical of people defending the poor or complaining about third world poverty to promote them.

[italic zero]

Okay since the premise didn't really go anywhere, let's argue tariffs. Namely Amit's statement,
moderation of commerce as to not completely ruin a community
against the neo-liberal condemnation of all tariffs outright.

[lunchforthesky]

I am flexible and support whichever policy has the greatest benefit for the greatest number at that time. This is on a global scale as i do not recognise people of one country being of more importance than any other. So tariffs which benifit the UK but are harmful to the rest of the world i dont support.

[griftadan]

Okay since the premise didn't really go anywhere, let's argue tariffs. Namely Amit's statement,

against the neo-liberal condemnation of all tariffs outright.

would that be like a protective tarrif?

[Iskandar]

would that be like a protective tarrif?
I believe so.

[griftadan]

those are really good at keeping us from buying supieror foriegn products.

[toxicmudd]

surely the protectionist tariffs do no good whatsoever, as they lead to exactly the opposite being imposed on you, so not only is it too expesive to import but also to export, creating less trade, fewer chances for giving the economy lots of lovely money. Its absurd, and I consider myself a right wing conservative, but who can it benefit?

[griftadan]

domestic companies with lobbyists. i'm pretty sure there isn't an export tarrif.

[italic zero]

would that be like a protective tarrif?
aren't all tariffs protective in effect?

[Iskandar]

aren't all tariffs protective in effect?
That would be their intention.
I think its hypocritical of people defending the poor or complaining about third world poverty to promote them
People of that type (e.g. me) generally have different ideas about solving poverty and underdevelopment than market forces.

[italic zero]

That would be their intention.
well sometimes the government is more concerned about the revenue created

[Aaron]

Nationalist economics is a very harsh way for countries further developed to stay head of the pack. Ask a third-world country whether it thinks that it's national economic identity is more important than growth and development and I'd say they'd say no. Ask a developed nation whether protecting their national economic identity is more important than supporting the interests of the market, and they'll probably say yes ignoring the fact that the world is one entire market and that they are affecting themselves negatively.


moderation of commerce as to not completely ruin a community
That's what legislation is for.

[Iskandar]

Ask a third-world country whether it thinks that it's national economic identity is more important than growth and development and I'd say they'd say no.
Well, there's more than one way of growing and developing.

[Aaron]

Yes there are. But guess what this thread is about?

[Iskandar]

Yes there are. But guess what this thread is about?
Uh nationalist economics?

[italic zero]

I can confirm that

[Smokey D]

I am flexible and support whichever policy has the greatest benefit for the greatest number at that time. This is on a global scale as i do not recognise people of one country being of more importance than any other. So tariffs which benifit the UK but are harmful to the rest of the world i dont support.

In a normal situation where a product is not inherently detrimental to society, all tariffs cause more problems than they cause.


People of that type (e.g. me) generally have different ideas about solving poverty and underdevelopment than market forces.

I was referring more to people like Danish who deplore NAFTA for destroying American and Canadian jobs while making millions of Mexicans better off. You can dislike a reliance on market forces and mechanisms while still understanding what is more appropriate and beneficial.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

In a normal situation where a product is not inherently detrimental to society, all tariffs cause more problems than they cause.
why?

I was referring more to people like Danish who deplore NAFTA for destroying American and Canadian jobs while making millions of Mexicans better off. You can dislike a reliance on market forces and mechanisms while still understanding what is more appropriate and beneficial.

maybe danish and others deplore it because it hasn't benefited America, Canada and Mexico.

[Smokey D]

why?

Because it creates dead weight loss which is a loss to society according to the principle of opportunity cost.

maybe danish and others deplore it because it hasn't benefited America, Canada and Mexico.

That's a stupid reason to deplore it. If someone desires to help the poor and free trade creates more jobs in a new area than it destroys in an old area (and thus, more people are self-sufficient and no longer poor relative to their communities), then it doesn't make sense to hate free trade.

[Iskandar]

That's a stupid reason to deplore it. If someone desires to help the poor and free trade creates more jobs in a new area than it destroys in an old area (and thus, more people are self-sufficient and no longer poor relative to their communities), then it doesn't make sense to hate free trade.
Not all jobs are equal.

If one hundred people of one country lose jobs with good pay, hours, working conditions, unionization, benefits, etc. to employ two hundred of another country in crap jobs, it's hard to say the change has been for the better.

[Smokey D]

That depends if the people who gain their jobs are no longer at risk of starving or not.

[Iskandar]

That depends if the people who gain their jobs are no longer at risk of starving or not.
Are there welfare programs in any developing nations?

[lunchforthesky]

Some african countries have free healthcare.

[Smokey D]

Are there welfare programs in any developing nations?

I don't think they'd be very efficient, but they're probably there.

[Vinnypants]

Sorry for sounding naive ... but what exactly is Nationalist Economics? I'm curious.

[The Digital Pimp]

Some african countries have free healthcare.

Is that the healthcare that rich Western countries pay for? Then I'm pretty sure it isn't free.

Sorry for sounding naive ... but what exactly is Nationalist Economics? I'm curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_nationalism

Economic nationalism (also called "national system of political economy") is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital.

Super simplified example with fake country names:
Say Granitora's car industry can produce and sell a car for $2000. Arvedina imports cars into Granitora, but because they have easier access to steel, they are able to produce indentical cars for less cost, thereby being able to sell them in Granitora for $1800.

The consumers of Granitora, seeing a bargain, start buying cars imported from Arvedina. This puts Granitora's own car industry at risk of going out of business because of competition from Country B. Granitora's government, wanting to protect its own car industry and the jobs that go with it, imposes a $300 tariff (tax) on cars imported from Arvedina, making them sell at $2100. Granitorian consumers therefore start buying their own locally produced cars at $2000, keeping their car industry alive.

This is a form of protectionism. Other forms include subsidies for local industries, quotas on imported goods, banning types of imported goods, and other policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism