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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-foreign-workers/story-e6frf7kf-1225797194837[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.
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.
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.
I am sure they will find uses for their steel, they are currently building and planning many global infrastructure projects, and building future markets.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?