$$$ - Protectionism - $$$

[Aussiejeff]

Memo US: Protectionism experiment tried in 1930 and didn't turn out well: http://www.stockhouse.com/News/FinancialNewsDetailFeeds.aspx?n=12233439&src=cp

Paragraph that says its perfectly OK for some countries to stimulate demand and then goes on to say, the problem is if everyone else does it.

IMO the Current Currency Catastrophe (CCC) is in the "everyone will protect their own interests at all cost, while at the same time disseminating blatant lies about free trade" category.

Why not. If it's good enough for the Goose to lay a brick.....

 

[numbercruncher]

More and more people are recognising the great globilisation experiment for the failure it is ....

Crisis means death of globalisation: WSF

The world economic crisis spells the death of globalisation and action is needed to protect the poor, say organisers of the World Social Forum in Brazil.

"We have come out against neo-liberal globalisation, and now that this globalisation is destroying itself we have to define the world we want," the founder of the annual event, Candido Grzybowski, told AFP as the forum wrapped up on Sunday.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=736486

 

[noirua]

Is President Obama taking up the mantle of protectionism, in his stimulus bill, by insisting companies in the US buy American?

EU warns Obama on protectionism in the stimulus bill: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9646OIO0.htm

 

[GumbyLearner]

Noirua

Thanks again for starting this thread. Very pertinent to the times the global economy is in.

Just one question?

Do you think the annexing of bad loan toxic sludge debt is protectionist?

What I'm trying to say is there are shaky things with Obama's current platform via Keynesian type programs to re-build the American economy which appear on the surface to be protectionist.

But do you think the George W Bush administration were also just as protectionist to protect the US banks via the government taking on bad-debt and not allowing liquid non-exposed market-forces to take them over and re-build again?

They both seem like protectionists policies to me?
Am I on the wrong track here???

 

[noirua]

Noirua

Thanks again for starting this thread. Very pertinent to the times the global economy is in.

Just one question?

Do you think the annexing of bad loan toxic sludge debt is protectionist?

What I'm trying to say is there are shaky things with Obama's current platform via Keynesian type programs to re-build the American economy which appear on the surface to be protectionist.

But do you think the George W Bush administration were also just as protectionist to protect the US banks via the government taking on bad-debt and not allowing liquid non-exposed market-forces to take them over and re-build again?

They both seem like protectionists policies to me?
Am I on the wrong track here???

Some say a Keynesian approach should be started in an upturn. Windfall taxes on companies that gain significantly by a commodity boom and Banks that have so much cash they don't know where to put it. High airport taxes to stop people travelling abroad too much. Very high taxes on high earners. High stamp duty on share trading to dampen it down a bit.

Thus the upturn is lessened and there is a lot of money in the bin for the rainy days ahead, such as now.

Unfortunately countries appear to be trying to lessen the downturn without having applied Keynesian type policies earlier. This means having to borrow money. Great if there is a boom then they can get it all back. If not then big problems and having to go to the IMF.

It is every country for themselves now. If a country needs money they should go to the IMF.
If the IMF can't help then depression arrives in poorer and incompetent countries. Such as, Iceland and many, many more to follow.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Some say a Keynesian approach should be started in an upturn. Windfall taxes on companies that gain significantly by a commodity boom and Banks that have so much cash they don't know where to put it. High airport taxes to stop people travelling abroad too much. Very high taxes on high earners. High stamp duty on share trading to dampen it down a bit.

Thus the upturn is lessened and there is a lot of money in the bin for the rainy days ahead, such as now.

Unfortunately countries appear to be trying to lessen the downturn without having applied Keynesian type policies earlier. This means having to borrow money. Great if there is a boom then they can get it all back. If not then big problems and having to go to the IMF.

It is every country for themselves now. If a country needs money they should go to the IMF.

Thankyou for your response to my question.

I'm no genius on this sort of stuff but again thankyou for the logic in your response.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Some say a Keynesian approach should be started in an upturn. Windfall taxes on companies that gain significantly by a commodity boom and Banks that have so much cash they don't know where to put it. High airport taxes to stop people travelling abroad too much. Very high taxes on high earners. High stamp duty on share trading to dampen it down a bit.

Thus the upturn is lessened and there is a lot of money in the bin for the rainy days ahead, such as now.

Unfortunately countries appear to be trying to lessen the downturn without having applied Keynesian type policies earlier. This means having to borrow money. Great if there is a boom then they can get it all back. If not then big problems and having to go to the IMF.

It is every country for themselves now. If a country needs money they should go to the IMF.
If the IMF can't help then depression arrives in poorer and incompetent countries. Such as, Iceland and many, many more to follow.

Take Cobb & Co as an example.
Similar to the mail carrier most prominent in 19th century Australia.
Not involved in dodgy-lending banks or financial instruments.

In the United States, Wells Fargo.
Not exposed to sub-prime AT ALL and also not a Big name on WALL street!
End up taking over Wachovia!
Completely liquid bank with zero exposure to toxic sludge lending.
But at the same time, restricted as to how they conduct business.

Is it protectionism, that a liquid bank like Wells Fargo could'nt launch a takeover bid for Lehmann, Merrill and alike?

That is protectionism!

 

[noirua]

The World looks to be in quite deep trouble now and Australia must look to itself. China continues to be interested in Aussie assets and are willing to pay over the odds, as in the case of Rio Tinto, seems not a bad way to go now.

 

[Aussiejeff]

The World looks to be in quite deep trouble now and Australia must look to itself. China continues to be interested in Aussie assets and are willing to pay over the odds, as in the case of Rio Tinto, seems not a bad way to go now.

Yes, I'm looking forward to being employed as a planter by the new OzChina Rice Paddy Co.

Apparently they are going to cover every spare inch of Oz with rice paddys and will employ every man, woman & child. Great times ahead!!

 

[lusk]

Obama Imposes Tariffs on $1.7 Billion in Chinese Tire Imports
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Mark Drajem

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama imposed tariffs starting at 35 percent on $1.7 billion of tire imports from China, backing a United Steelworkers union complaint against the second-largest U.S. trading partner.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in an e-mailed statement that the additional duties would last for three years, dropping each year by 5 percentage points.

The case is the largest so-called safeguard petition filed to protect U.S. producers from surging imports from China, and was a test of Obama’s approach to trade disputes. The steelworkers union represents 15,000 employees at 13 tire plants in the U.S.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWWHfEfWIvhA


Looks like Obama has saved 15000 employees in the tire industry but l wonder how many jobs he may have eventually lost with this decision elsewhere.

 

[Aussiejeff]

LOL

Didn't the GeeWhizz 20-somethings PROMISE THE WORLD that they WOULD NOT RESORT TO PROTECTIONISM?

Errm. Wots dis den?

[size=+2]UK shuts door on foreign workers[/size]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has outlined a series of proposed reforms to Britain's points-based immigration system, which is based on the one developed in Australia.

Under the latest crackdown, Mr Brown wants professionals - including doctors, engineers and hospital consultants, skilled chefs and care workers - to be removed from the list of workers eligible to apply for jobs.

Rules for foreign students applying for visas to study in the UK will also be tightened.

Mr Brown said that while immigrants had brought immeasurable benefits to Britain, changes to the system were needed [size=+1]in order to protect jobs for local workers.[/size]

The changes come after the government earlier this year dumped 30,000 occupations from its list of jobs eligible skilled migrants could apply for in Britain.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-foreign-workers/story-e6frf7kf-1225797194837

Tsk, tsk.

Liar, liar, Mr Brown - your pants are on fire. :angry:

Careful, or you will end up like our pompous lil' Emperor Without Clothes....

 

[doctorj]

Folks here love it.

What they don't realise is that with the pound going through the floor, taxes going through the roof and significant risk of regulatory/legislative changes to remuneration, mobile professionals will and already are looking elsewhere.

London was convenient, but markets are global and companies can be easily re-domiciled.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Folks here love it.

What they don't realise is that with the pound going through the floor, taxes going through the roof and significant risk of regulatory/legislative changes to remuneration, mobile professionals will and already are looking elsewhere.

London was convenient, but markets are global and companies can be easily re-domiciled.

In the not-too-distant future when China & India become the World's no.1 & 2 manufacturing/service sector behemoths, guess where almost all "labour" will be sourced from when each tries to "gain a competitive advantage" over the other?

Australia? Nope. Labour too expensive.
UK? Nope. Labour too expensive.
US? Nope. Labour too expensive.

I could go on for some considerable time, but... 3 strikes and I'm out....!! DOH....

The West trying to protect it's over-paid, over-here workers through panicky protectionism will in the end be no more effective than the levees were in protecting New Orleans against the ravages of Katrina.

Are we really so smug to think the residents of Mumbai & Beijing give a toss about our poor, (comparatively) rich workers who face losing their jobs in the coming labour force shootout??

The West's pollies are even encouraging Chindia to develop their economies to be more self-sustaining from local consumerism. Where is the labour force for that expansion going to come from?

Say no more....

 

[condog]

Already India is becoming increasingly more expensive with IT and proffessional services and we are seeing a mass of IT outsourcing going to other areas of Asia and Romania etc.....

In a global market, labour will allways pack up and move to cheaper locations when the economic fundamentals dictate its viable.... Just as Japan became too exensive, so too will China as its residents standards of living rises.... Its just a matter of time....

Western governments are electorally bound to be short sighted and populous, which forces them to make dumb protectionist decisions to appeal to the fears of their electorate....

Just as Johnny howard and his team used boat people to their advantage, the US, UK are now using quasie protectionism as a way of settling the nerves of there own voters...

But in the long run its a really stupid move.... It ultimately makes your own country less efficient and lowers your standard of living.... With the exception of a few key industies crucial to national security and population survival, protectionism should allways be phased out or eliminated.....

If Australia / US / UK as a country wants to be competitive on a world stage they need to have the intelligence, flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit to develop industries that are viable and profitable without any use of protectionist strategies..... EG: Biota, IDT, Cochlear etc

Whe cannot compete on labour, but we can compete with intelligence and technology....

The biggest exception to this is food supply... PErhaps western countries should use farm subsidies, but only to a level needed to ensure domestic survival.....

 

[noirua]

China and Japan are said to have $2 trillion that could be lent to the International Monetary Fund. However, in these very difficult times they may consider investment in Asia and the Far East a far better bet. Or they may keep the money at home as protectionism spreads.

Many countries may have little option now than to put up trade barriers. So if the IMF are constrained it may end up, every country for themselves.

And so it came to pass. Ten years later and crunch time has come. At least China will have lots of cheap steel for sale and America lots of pork and beans.

 

[Value Collector]

And so it came to pass. Ten years later and crunch time has come. At least China will have lots of cheap steel for sale and America lots of pork and beans.

I am sure they will find uses for their steel, they are currently building and planning many global infrastructure projects, and building future markets.

 

[noirua]

In a war of words it can be difficult to see who will win in reality. The Trump game is that the biggest and toughest guy on the block must always come up trumps in the end. In the game of double bluff something can go terribly wrong. In the old Wild West it depends on what is held at the hip rather than face down on the table.