Protectionism is a type of policy that benefits the few at the expense of all. The few are the owners and employees of the businesses protected by the tariffs, quotas, and/or subsidies. On the other hand, everyone loses from the resulting higher prices and potentially lower quality of goods or services. As one might guess, protectionism is highly political with trade unions often just as vocal and influential as business owners. While protectionism flies in the face of economic utilitarian theory, it continues to exist in small doses because the average consumer does not notice it.

Contrary to free-trade dogma, Protectionism can work very well: Germany, Japan and the US-the three largest industrial powers in the world-all built their industries behind tariff walls. Protectionism rarely works as intended, however, for a wide variety of reasons: it causes retalition by trading partners, invites corruption/smuggling, and makes industrialists lazy and dependent on governmental protection. While it worked for a few countries in the 19th century (when Britain decided that the financial/political benefits of free trade outweighed the costs to jobs and industry), in modern circumstances Protectionism tends to do more harm than good. For instance, the US auto industry might be in better shape today had they been forced to compete with Japanese automakers in making fuel-efficient cars. Instead, the government encouraged Detroit to survive by relying on the protected market for gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups. Twenty years later, the negative consequences of protectionism on the economy (inefficency, bad choices, poor quality, massive losses) are obvious.

Our gut-less leaders would never bite the hand that feeds them. Good as far as reactionary solutions are concerned.

outdated way of thinking. we are in a one world global economy. our companies and policy makers need to act that way.

Already shown not to work. Basic history and economics. It stunts economic growth and creates tension with other nations and potential trade partners.

Is not effective

Protectionism serves almost no purpose whatsoever. The only thing this does is to protect domestic producers that are inefficient. It almost never helps out the economy because the benefits are only felt within the targeted industries that are being protected. Look at Bush's steel tariffs in early 2002. The economy isn't growing as fast as we want it to because manufacturing industries are not doing as well; they have to pay higher prices to produce their products, which means that higher prices are passed on to the consumer and companies cannot afford to hire more workers. Politicians use protectionism to protect select industries, but it really ends hurting them more because it weakens the national economy and it causes higher unemployment to boot. The reality is that protectionism only stifles international trade. One of the big causes of poverty in the third world is protectionism. It really is simpler than it really seems. Countries that have liberalized their trade policies over the past few years have seen a higher standard of living among the working poor and higher life expectancies along with it. When you liberalize trade, you're freeing up capital to be invested into infrastructure. Genuine free trade brings jobs along with better workplace protections and benefits. Protectionists essentially want to keep poor countries in the rut that they are stuck in. Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest areas of the world because most of the countries in that region have protectionist trade policies. Protectionists say that infant industries in poor countries need to be protected. Obviously, in order to get business to expand, you need capital to get it started. Industry will expand if you have a larger pool of capital to access. The political left, which seems to have a monopoly on sympathy, doesn't really listen to the plight of the poor in other countries. Economic growth doesn't increase inequality, it makes the poor richer. There will always be inequality in a society; that is inevitable at any rate. Finally, countries that trade frequently are less likely to go to war with each other. We have enacted a set of tariffs on textiles that really hurts the Pakistani economy. A few years ago, President Bush scrapped a free trade pact with Pakistan that would have pumped money into their economy. If we're going to win the war on terrorism, we have to promote a healthy economy in these countries where the threat is present. A healthier economy in these regions will not give the terrorists reason to attack us. This will not solve the war on terrorism entirely, but it will win us a lot of goodwill within those countries, meaning that groups like Al-Qaeda will have less recruits...just something to think about.

Another one of Lincoln's most sought after ideas for America......1 star.

Not only does our government take a laissez-faire attitude towards big business,they are helping the conglomerates make money by giving them a monopoly of sorts.Democrats and republicans are both guilty of this,and I say pay the tariffs.It's worth it for a little freedom.

See my comments on Nationalism*

a country should protect its businesses.

Protectionism has lead to not only stagnation in the poorest African countries, but even a decline of the economy. Because they can't sell their products in the rich world, they can't give their population food, education & basic health. I don't think it's something to be proud of, but finally the EU has shown again how good a prototype it is! After a gradual change over some years, they'll finally reach the point where they don't demand one single tax on products coming from the 49 poorest countries in the world, just excluding guns! It's such an important & fantastic improve that makes us Europeans proud of being ourselves! :-)

Here's where Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader stand together as "enemies of the future" to paraphrase the wonderful Virginia Postrel.