Reverting to protectionism

[mahnmut]

Imagine you're participating in a TV show and you're asked to guess which US presidential candidate has said that many Americans are angry because of the state of the economy, which is rigged in favor of the elites. This statement could've easily been Trump's or Hillary's, or Bernie's. And not because of the cynicism of the former two, both

Comments

[dreamville_bg]

If we want to subsidize a certain industry, say, to increase the wine exports, we'd ultimately have to take away from everyone's income in an indirect way. In other words, if there's a deficit of democracy, even if the majority of the people do not like wine, the state would still compel them to indirectly work for the wine industry against their will.

A truly free economy in its pure form dictates that those sectors and economies that are good at producing wine of the highest quality while investing the minimum resources in the production would prevail, be able to sell a lot of good wine cheaply, and win the trust of the bulk of the customers whose wine preferences they've managed to meet. Everything beyond that is artificially and temporarily pumped-up balloons that are doomed to go bust sooner or later, and not in a nice way.

I'd also add this was a very good read and a brilliantly written piece.

[airiefairie]

I enjoyed it too.

[mahnmut]

It's got charts 'n graphs 'n bullet points 'n stuff, and even a cartoon!

[abomvubuso]

Thirded.

[luzribeiro]

Oh look! The US labor force participation rate reached its peak - when? In Bill Clinton's years. That lucky bastard.

[policraticus]

In Bill Clinton's years.

AKA: The Contract with America years.

[luzribeiro]

Yep. And?

[policraticus]

It took two to tango. The Clinton/Gingrich Years is probably more accurate, if less euphonious.

[underlankers]

The shift to protectionism is when you know an empire's in decline and knows it. Was that way with the British Empire, so with the American Empire that succeeded it.