...it always backfires, and ends up costing jobs. Trade wars tend to break out. But what do politicians care? "Protecting jobs" gets them elected, and that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Supposedly, someone in the administration is keeping track of the number of jobs being "created" -- no doubt for use in the next political campaign. Do you think they'll be properly tracking and deducting the jobs destroyed by the Buy American mantra? Probably not. But I'm confident that objective journalists such as Lou Dobbs will call them on it.
Just kidding. Replace "confident" with "not holding my breath" in the sentence above, and scratch the word "objective."
Read about the "outrage in Canada" in today's Washington Post.
[Many thanks to commenter Harun for pointing this out. I lifted this from the comments under the previous article.]
I really enjoy reading the articles that you post here and the quality comments that follow.
I can't agree with this article because what it labels as 'protectionism' isn't what I would would typically consider protectionism. The US government isn't placing unreasonable tariffs to force American consumers to choose domestic goods. The government is merely trying to ensure that the money taken from the taxpayer to 'stimulate the economy' is used to stimulate our economy first.
I simply cannot wrap my mind around foreign states crying about how the US spends its tax revenue! I'm sorry, but they can't lay a reasonable claim on this.
Don't get me wrong. I understand the dangers of protectionism, but this is a screwy situation.
In my mind, the better solution would have been to implement the stimulus through tax cuts to individuals and corporations to lower the barrier of economic development.
Posted by: tocomment | 15 May 2009 at 15:39
The best results (in the aggregate) happen when consumers' money is used to buy the best value (highest available quality at the lowest available price), regardless of who made it.
There are two competing philosophies at work:
1. Workers deserve jobs regardless of their productivity or the quality of their output.
2. Consumers deserve affordable products that improve their standard of living, regardless of who makes them.
Philosophy #2 is dynamic, and creates more jobs in the long run. Philosophy #1 stifles growth and innovation, leads to stagnation, and is where things in this country are headed. Just ask the UAW.
Posted by: Optimist123 | 15 May 2009 at 17:06
One should not be flabbergasted that the new administration is causing consternation. President Obama, aside from his change of position on NAFTA, Gitmo tribunals and the recent refusal to cut loose terrorist prisoner photos, is behaving exactly as he said he would.
Personally, I'm finding this to be a quirky start...even weird. While I hold out hope that this rookie will come around to a more moderate policy, I fear that the undercurrents are such that we are being pushed along a path that will lead us to a zombie-like underachieving nanny state.seasoning my rational self tells me that attempts will be made to dramatically alter
Posted by: Bob | 16 May 2009 at 16:00
Don't forget telecom wiretapping, stem cell research, gay rights and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In fact since his base is the anti-war pro-union pro-civil rights movement if I had voted for Obama based on what he promised I would feel pretty betrayed by now. Check out "The Hundred Days that Didn't" in the Vatican's newspaper.
As usual the devil is in the details and from the article linked Canadians are having little trouble with Federal contracts due to the "does not violate existing trade agreements." Rather it's state and local governments playing protectionism. City Hall in small towns is a powder keg of xenophobia anyway. Yes, the article says "federal officials" wrote the guidelines for municipal and local governments, but from the comments of mayors they wholeheartedly agree. The guidelines just gives them an excuse. Of course the Feds could have forced local and State governments to go for the lowest bidder and take foreign contracts, but then there's the whole thorny issue of State's rights and central planning. Mayors are egotistical, self-conceited types who will absolutely refuse money from higher levels of governemnt if it comes with too many strings.
With all his political capital Obama could've done a lot more if he truly believed in protectionism. This is either subterfuge to fool moderates (and Obama conserving political capital for say, healthcare), or far more likely overzealous bureaucrats, administrators and mayors seeing a chance to finally fight foreign "invasion."
Posted by: beancounter | 17 May 2009 at 12:05
Beancounter, even I have other things to do sometimes, but I do want to continue our other thread, under misremembering Jack Kemp. Please keep checking back, or my headaches will have been in vain.
I take the greatest issue with your "I believe in the will of the people except in cases of violating law and/or natural rights," so here I'll ask you the same - why are you even making economic points, if all you have to do is to hold your finger in the wind? Did you outline such exceptions above?
Posted by: tttar | 21 May 2009 at 09:32
Another way of putting it: we must be doomed to economic destruction, if we're already at maximum growth, since our current state of affairs (legitimized by the will of the majority) is the best possible one we can expect, right?
Posted by: tttar | 21 May 2009 at 11:35