protectionist policies suck #27,201 (the sand version)

[dead0man]

link-Miami Herald

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RINO Tom]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

We did it, folks. We finally achieved PEAK ALIENATION.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

[TPIG]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

I agree that the government's job is to prioritize the interests and safety of its own people above those of other nations. However, protectionism is not an example government protecting the interests of all of its citizens. Protectionism is government supporting politically well-connected companies at the expense of the purchasing power of its own (especially poorer) people. It's cronyism at its finest.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

Thanks for the ethics lesson, banker.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

Free movement of people is just completely unworkable in the modern era. At the very least you need to keep track of who is coming in and who is going for security reasons.

Also, I would point out that free movement of this fashion is very destabilizing at extreme levels and thus it is the government's responsibility for the sake of economic stability and to place reasonable limits on such movement.

Complete freedom of labor and goods is the idealist fantasy of Libertarians and neoliberals.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

Thanks for the ethics lesson, banker.

It's sad that caring for the global poor is now considered right wing.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

Thanks for the ethics lesson, banker.

It's sad that caring for the global poor is now considered right wing.

Private and religious organizations take care of the global poor because that's what they're meant for.  The US government and military were never established to serve any country other than the United States.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

Thanks for the ethics lesson, banker.

It's sad that caring for the global poor is now considered right wing.

Thanks. And that being a banker (which I am not) is now the pinnacle of evil. Regardless, both bankers can benefit from the GDP-doubling which would occur with open borders. (Which does not mean no security or border checkpoints--it means no visas are required to move somewhere and citizenship takes place wherever you currently live,not where you're born.)

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

Thanks for the ethics lesson, banker.

It's sad that caring for the global poor is now considered right wing.

Private and religious organizations take care of the global poor because that's what they're meant for.  The US government and military were never established to serve any country other than the United States.

Sure, but the US, like everyone, benefits from globalization. Also, religious organizations and charities can't/shouldn't serve the whole world, and the economic gains the global poor receive from free trade and open borders dwarf any aid we could ever provide them. Besides, in this day and age there is no entity, other than the United States government, who can practically help people all over the world, so we must be compassionate and outward looking.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Supporting protectionism is often framed in a "moral" way to help American workers ... I think it's obvious it ends up hurting way more people than it helps, but I respect and empathize with people who support it.  I do not support it, as I think it's terrible economic policy, but it definitely gives me some moral pause...

Really? I feel the exact opposite. Even if protectionism helped a country's own workers (which it doesn't), I find it morally abhorrent to prioritize one's fellow citizens over those of other countries.

Literally the inherent responsibility of the government.

Protectionism might not work, but globalism is a joke.

Just like we support global universal human rights, I believe we should support global economic freedoms, such as the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Nation states are obsolete and inherently unfair.

Thanks for the ethics lesson, banker.

It's sad that caring for the global poor is now considered right wing.

Private and religious organizations take care of the global poor because that's what they're meant for.  The US government and military were never established to serve any country other than the United States.

Sure, but the US, like everyone, benefits from globalization. Also, religious organizations and charities can't/shouldn't serve the whole world, and the economic gains the global poor receive from free trade and open borders dwarf any aid we could ever provide them.

Trade with other countries =/= globalism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. No we can't.
2. It's not our job.

What does the US gain from telling Pajeet to sh!t in a toilet instead of the street?  Just so they consume more of our sh!t?  How does this magic globalism undo all the environmental damage it's caused, or repair the cultures it's eroded?