Turn on thread page Beta

Should Britain protect industries that are uncompetitive? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. Capitalism works best when left alone.

    If we can't compete in manufacturing then lets compete on services instead (a trend that's clearly already in motion) it'll benefit everyone in the long run.

    Andrew
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that ALL new firms should be given a subsidy period of 6-12 months in which to grow and solidify, from then onwards protectionism makes no sense, as it simply rewards laziness.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    nope...

    just leads to bigger headaches down the line
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The question is pretty straightforward. Do you think the Britain government should provide subsidies to British firms that can't compete with their international rivals, or place tariffs on imports to make foreign products more expensive than their domestic counterparts? Do you think the salaries and/or working conditions of workers in the other countries should be taken into account when making these decisions?
    i would say no myself, but when every other damned country is doing it (very much including america) we are simply leaving ourselves massively exposed
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    i would say no myself, but when every other damned country is doing it (very much including america) we are simply leaving ourselves massively exposed
    America has the lowest tariffs in the Western world (with the possible exception of Australia). Just because we have some tariffs, doesn't mean that we support protectionism. Laissez-faire can only be measured in degrees, and it's silly to claim that all other countries are protectionist merely because they protect one or two industries. The trend over the last 60 years has clearly been towards lower tariffs and subsidies, even in protectionist countries like France and Italy.

    Furthermore, protectionism hurts the country doing the protecting far more than it hurts the nations its trying to protect its industries from, as protection requires high taxation (which stifles economic growth) and high consumer prices (due to a lack of competition).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol i love to see a Tory say that protectionism is not needed. It reminds me of when the Conservative Party was formed and that good lad Robert Peel introduced total laissez-faire politics (including getting rid of the of the Corn Laws), which developed the policy of 'liberal' Conservative economic policy. Tories have gone through a full transformation. And I know you will think I am a Labour member and I think we should probably buy out those industries for the countries sake, but then again I'm a reformer and think that what is best for the country is best for me. Just like Robert Peel believed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i have to agree with "andy uk guy" in that capitalism works best when left alone, protectionism is bad for industry and consumers alike
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What do you mean by labour conditions in other countries?

    Ideally, the free market should determine whether companies are fit to compete or not. Protectionism is dangerous and simply leads to trade wars, which aren't in anyone's interest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that the economy is best left to itself, and that we should have as little protectionism as possible, but I think that its unrealistic to expect us to have no tariffs at all. We can have one or two, and still be one of the least protectionist countries in the world. But an excessive amount of tariffs are bad for the country and the economy. The days when tariffs made sense ie the days of Imperial Preference and the British Empire are over.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    America has the lowest tariffs in the Western world (with the possible exception of Australia). Just because we have some tariffs, doesn't mean that we support protectionism. Laissez-faire can only be measured in degrees, and it's silly to claim that all other countries are protectionist merely because they protect one or two industries. The trend over the last 60 years has clearly been towards lower tariffs and subsidies, even in protectionist countries like France and Italy.

    Furthermore, protectionism hurts the country doing the protecting far more than it hurts the nations its trying to protect its industries from, as protection requires high taxation (which stifles economic growth) and high consumer prices (due to a lack of competition).
    it only has the lowest tariffs because it has a dominating industry in most areas. in just about ANY area it feels threatened it responds with utterly shameless examples of hypocrisy, evidenced by how it bails out its domestic air industry every 5 minutes, the whole steel issues, car industry, rtextiles industry from china...

    I mean yeh, it sucks that workers in china are cheap as dirt and so they can churn out a billion sweaters for all of $1 each (retailing at $40) but if you tell them to free up their markets. and they do. and then american companies invest in them and start exporting goods, it isn't fair to then put tariffs and limits on the imports.

    This all without mentioning the utterly digusting amount of subsidies going to farmers to make produce that the domestic market doesn't even want, so they dump it on developing markets (driving farmers there into abject poverty).

    And before you say it I KNOW the EU is just ass bad - partic with the ruddy CAP, and i'm a big supporter of the brit lead initiatives to scrap the bloody things...but those damned frogs love the lazy life...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    I agree that the economy is best left to itself, and that we should have as little protectionism as possible, but I think that its unrealistic to expect us to have no tariffs at all. We can have one or two, and still be one of the least protectionist countries in the world. But an excessive amount of tariffs are bad for the country and the economy. The days when tariffs made sense ie the days of Imperial Preference and the British Empire are over.
    How do you decide on what items these tariffs should be?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    it only has the lowest tariffs because it has a dominating industry in most areas. in just about ANY area it feels threatened it responds with utterly shameless examples of hypocrisy, evidenced by how it bails out its domestic air industry every 5 minutes, the whole steel issues, car industry, rtextiles industry from china...
    Read up on the theory of comparative advantage. Even if a country is the best at producing everything, it would still be in its interest to produce goods that has a comparative advantage in. For example, if one American factory produces 10 cars and 15 computers per year, and one Japanese factory produces 2 cars and 5 computers per year, it would be in America's interest to produce only cars. Using that example, even if America was the best in producing everything (which it isn't), it would still dedicate the most resources to industries that have a comparative advantage, which would put the rest of the industries at a comparative disadvantage against their international rivals. As for America being protectionist, what happened to America's world-class electronics industry? It's dead. Where's the American textile industry? It doesn't exist.

    This all without mentioning the utterly digusting amount of subsidies going to farmers to make produce that the domestic market doesn't even want, so they dump it on developing markets (driving farmers there into abject poverty).
    Yes, agricultural subsidies are bad, and are the last major stumbling bloc for free trade, but you overstate its impact on the third world. A vast majority of trade in the world happens on an intraregional basis. The reason third world countries are poor (other than corruption) is not because they don't have access to Western markets, but because they don't have access to other third world markets. The tariffs African countries have on other African countries are three times as high as Western tariffs on African countries for example. If the third world countries lifted tariffs against each other, the effects would be tremendous and immediate.

    And before you say it I KNOW the EU is just ass bad - partic with the ruddy CAP, and i'm a big supporter of the brit lead initiatives to scrap the bloody things...but those damned frogs love the lazy life...
    Actually the EU is far, far worse. The EU spends something like $100 billion a year on agricultural subsidies, while the US spends around a fifth of that amount.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I hate the view that just because other states do it we should. Just because they throw rocks into their harbours does not mean we have to do the same.
    if every other country protects their own industry and we don't do the same then we leave ourselves vulnerable surely?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    if every other country protects their own industry and we don't do the same then we leave ourselves vulnerable surely?
    Tell that to the Australian farmers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    if every other country protects their own industry and we don't do the same then we leave ourselves vulnerable surely?
    That's not true, I just don't know the game theory to prove it yet. =P I'll ensure I read that chapter of my new book next!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    That's not true, I just don't know the game theory to prove it yet. =P I'll ensure I read that chapter of my new book next!
    You don't need to know game theory; economic theory is more useful. Unilaterally removing tariffs leads to a fall in the prices of goods and services, which increases the real income of everyone in the country. Meanwhile, industries that become international uncompetitive will go bust, while those that are competitive will get more resources (both capital and labor). The people from this country will then purchase more products from these competitive industries with their additional income, thereby perpetuating the comparative advantage of these industries relative to their international competitors.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Tell that to the Australian farmers.
    what does that mean? they are thriving despite no subsidies or tariffs, or they are being driven to the wall?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snake)
    what does that mean? they are thriving despite no subsidies or tariffs, or they are being driven to the wall?
    The former.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The former.
    and their main produce and markets are..?
    :confused:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snake)
    and their main produce and markets are..?
    :confused:
    http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc..._australia.htm
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.