Context here Is In the 1970s in USA due to Japanese imports of cars USAs trade deficit rose to 1 BILLION. As a consequence of LACK OF PROTECTIONIST MEASURES BY CARTER lots of Japanese imports of cars led to the decline in the US manufacturing sector in Detroit causing unrmployrnrnt in Detroit in the manufacturing sector to rise to 25%

Your video was ahead of its time now that Trump is being seen as a protectionist. I personally have been in favor of free market principles WITHIN an economy, but with ad hoc protectionist policies where needed (ie China).

@rdevil5330

2 жыл бұрын

The best argument is using unused resources (works in large, open countries and can be combined with homesteading )

Awesome points! I'm happy I found this video and your channel!

Amazing! Ive been meaning to look into protectionism for a while now, and this explained it beautifully

@tyssenrengasamy253

2 жыл бұрын

O

@rollasix7238

Жыл бұрын

bro wasnt even revising he did this for his personal enjoyment

@MCart1215

Жыл бұрын

@@rollasix7238 lol

Breathing space = room for inefficiency. Couldn't have said it better myself!

This was well explained 👏👏

Excellent and very consise

This is what Western and Eastern Europe origin countries need

well explained dear, keep it up.

explained this soo well

Other things being equal a firm that doesn't have to worry about polluting or worker safety will have a cost-advantage.

great video

Good job!

ok thanks bro helpsed alot

I would pay for these videos if it was needed

could another evaluation point for protection against dumping the fact that governments reducing their domestic consumers' potential consumer surplus?

@nehasarda4564

7 ай бұрын

yes it could be possible

Dal carries my alevels !!

Dal The Man!

You have any idea how hard it is to find and unbiased piece on this subject??. This was more of the same.

shouldn't it vary amongst which country you are engaging with

6:00 Even though decreasing imports increases (X-M) component of GDP doesn't it also decrease consumption (C)?

@zacweston-edwards8849

Жыл бұрын

no because the assumption is those consumers will spend the same, or more, on domestic goods

Trump

countries like asia?

The national security argument is valid too? Especially with Trump

Hi is there anyway to write you emails?

'countries like Asia'?

@EconplusDal

8 жыл бұрын

+Jack Buckee Haha bit of a low moment there! Funny what can happen when you're in the zone - I meant Asian countries!

@javkhaa44

6 жыл бұрын

it is funny how you predicted the cost of new iphone a year ago

@wladimirduroux909

6 жыл бұрын

Spoke too soon

@montajsss9655

4 жыл бұрын

@@javkhaa44 lol 2020

Globalization disproves Mercantilism which is what Protectionism is a part of. Globalization eliminates tariffs on products while Protectionism will artificially change the price of products, because this policy will definitely lead to less quality. If a company knows their foreign competition price floor, no longer do they need to compete based on price, so they produce with minimum quality. Only enough quality to beat the foreign price. Competition of price and quality is required in order to provide the environment in which the consumer decides the best products. When government interferes the consumer ends up being harmed both in quality and price. So instead, Globalization is the better option to open up a free market enterprise by eliminating tariffs on foreign companies. I am proposing the best quality for the best price. In a free market, consumers decide if they want quality that does not last for five years or if they do. The idea that you decide, not the government, is a basic freedom Americans embrace. If other countries have import taxes that means their citizens pay higher prices for less quality, which results in them choosing government managed economics. Americans should always embrace free markets through Globalization.

@mantonio121773

5 жыл бұрын

You say if a domestic company doesn't have to compete on price internationally, it will essentially slack off and create an inferior product. That's just not true, they still have endless domestic competition to keep them honest. That's an old argument / manipulation that paints a picture of a one industry per product/service country. It seems to me that if you have a lack of competition in your given industry - the market would create it. And if it couldn't for whatever reason, the government should incentivize it. But that's a separate argument. The other argument is a manipulation of the truth to serve the industry owner by letting them farm the work out to the cheapest labor they can exploit and sell back into the market it took the jobs from without penalty. It's a double whammy for that economy - you lose the jobs, you lose the money - the taxes and with it all - your way of life. But hey, you can get your cheap shit even cheaper. So you lose the money from the jobs and taxes - that's gone and you spend your money (what your unemployed ass still has) into a foreign economy - That's the double whammy. You can't keep taking cash out of the ecosystem like that on both ends and sustain life. Obviously. Also obvious - you don't tariff things you can't make yourself - it's not an all or nothing deal - another part of this manipulation you see literally everywhere you look.

Stick to Economics Dal mate, Asia's not a country ;) 4:32

@xd-p1610

5 жыл бұрын

Joe Hitch well I think he means majority of Asian countries since China isn’t the only Asian country being taken advantage of, he could of put all the Countries in the world with low cost labor but it would take to long, using Asia would just give a fast answer to fit on the board

@joehitch4202

5 жыл бұрын

Javier Diaz-Portillo I was joking mate

Daddy