On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:22:27 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
You mean something like managing our trade rather than just letting the
chips fall where they may? You mean we decide what industries we want to
keep for the good of the country and figure out what we are willing to do to
keep them healthy? We might even plan which areas we want to allow free
trade to operate in and which areas that we think that would be a bad idea
for the majority of Americans. In other words a system that is not free
trade.
=============
The major problem with attempting to target economic segments for
protection/growth is that this leads to "crony capitalism," where
the selection is based on political influence, prestige, greed,
etc. and not actual need. Indeed, "need" has different meanings
according to your perceptions of the world, and even an honest
evaluation/prioritization by one group will be inane from the
perspective of another group.
Historically this policy was called mercantilism and arose in
parallel with the nation-state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
This seemed to be correct (operational) for a while, but then the
assumption that the amount of international trade was "fixed"
became increasingly incorrect.
This was replaced with a later form called neo-mercantilism, as
opposed to the "free trade" (Ricardo) of the UK. The economies
of both the Kaiser's Germany and the United States could be
described as neo-mercantile, and in the US case with a fair bit
of isolationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism
Historically this seems to have been quite successful in the
aggregate for the countries involved, albeit at considerable cost
to other countries.
Note that "free trade" is an illusion in that only the
dominant/hegemon power [the UK then, the US now] and their
clients benefits from "free trade," This is an illusion because
operationally this is neo-mercantilism and because of the huge
arms races and military/industrial complex, it verges on
classical mercantilism. A characteristic is the practice of
denominating the majority of international trade in the hegemon's
currency, even between two other countries. The illusion of
"free trade" collapses when the underlying neo-mercantilism
collapses when hegemony is lost, either through a military
defeat, economic stagnation, failed financial speculation,
political degeneration, or a simple failure to adapt to changing
circumstances.
Many countries are now practicing "industrial mercantilism" or
more broadly "techno-industrial mercantilism," with varying
degrees of success. In the more successful versions of this,
the central planning agencies are insuring not only
techno-industrial "success" but are also implementing common
sense actions to preserve the national existence such as securing
an adequate internal food supply (possibly beans, beans, and more
beans, with imports in the up cycle), and adequate affordable
medical care for the people. Note that this is not autarky, but
rational contingency planning.
A major problem is that of the "wolf in sheep's clothing," where
a trans-national corporation pretends to be a national
corporation (as they may have been at one time) to obtain tax and
duty preferences, but then evades the actions and restrictions
that a truly national corporation would exhibit. This is
particularly true in the financial areas, where available capital
is reinvested outside the nation. This can be encapsulated
neatly in the [no longer operational] syllogism "When American
corporations do well, American does well, and when America does
well, Americans do well." The problem being there are no more
American corporations, only trans-national corporations, which
were American at one time, which are still domiciled in America.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).