What are Arguments For Protectionism | International | The Global Economy | IB Economics Exam Review

Join 3,400+ Readers every Friday for my weekly newsletter: learn-brad-cartwright.ck.page...
Each Friday you'll receive one practical Economics tip, thought, or teaching strategy to help you become a more empowered student or teacher:
Buy The Entire Course for Only $19.95: www.bradcartwright.com/pages/...
LINKEDIN: / brad-cartwright
INSTAGRAM: / bradleyocartwright
FACEBOOK: / bradleyocartwright
WEBSITE: www.bradcartwright.com
IB ECONOMICS STUDENTS
Student Home Page: www.bradcartwright.com/pages/...
IB ECONOMICS TEACHER WORKSHOPS, MEMBERSHIPS, AND RESOURCES
Teacher Home Page: www.bradcartwright.com/pages/...
IB ECONOMICS YEARLY SCHOOL MEMBERSHIP
Yearly School Membership: www.bradcartwright.com/bundle...
IB CORE WORKSHOPS AND TRAININGS
Home Page: www.bradcartwright.com/pages/...
ON-SITE AND ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAININGS:
Contact Information: [e-mail]
THE WORLD IS OUR CLASSROOM!
Brad

[@brooklynmonk1]

Brad, by preceding your explanation of the arguments for protectionism with the statement "You will see they are not very valid" you have eliminated any objectivity. If you feel that free trade is always the answer and is better than protectionism, why not provide an honest analysis, rather than a biased one? The jobs argument is NOT invalid, as displaces factory workers do not find high-paying replacement jobs. They are generally relegated to working at minimum wage with a 66% pay cut. The national defense argument is NOT invalid. On a case by case basis, companies, industries and claims need to be evaluated, and some will not prove valid, but others will. How can you say that national defense is an invalid argument? Would you be willing to have an actual discussion on this topic with me? We could do a Skype or Zoom discussion, film it and post it on KZbin.

[@ninsiimaimmaculate4840]

It put me off too. Economics makes it seem like one can not argue against free trade. At all.

[@james192599]

Look at the empirical historical data of protectionist countries vs free trade countries. USA,Japan,EU,China and other rich countries have gotten rich via protectionism while currently developing countries that are still poor like in Africa have way less restrictions on trade but remain poor.

[@mkm1015]

one of the greatest lies ever told by today's economists is that full free trade open market capitalism will make a poor country rich, it's painful to listen to this crap

[@libertyordeath5630]

@@mkm1015 I really love the way he said that protectionism doesn't actually protect jobs in the long term and brings up the fact that US steel manufacturing only stayed in business until the tariffs went down and the market was flooded. It is like saying a safe doesn't keep your valuables secure in the long term because eventually you may leave it unlocked...

[@joshuabarnard5702]

Yeah. And all the economic arguments against protectionism because it decreases domestic consumption ignore the income effect of demand, or rightward and leftward shifts of the demand curve. If protectionism increases domestic production, then domestic consumption will also increase. Which offsets any decrease in consumption caused by protectionism. Whereas increasing domestic consumption through free trade does not necessarily mean an increase of domestic production in another industry, as the extra money saved can be spent on even more foreign goods. And decreasing domestic production will eventually lead to decreasing domestic consumption as, ofc, you must produce in order to consume. The fact that the US became the wealthiest and most industrially advanced country while having the highest tariffs kind of undermines the whole free trade argument.

[@dantean]

@@libertyordeath5630 I think what he says is it was already on its way out and the lifting of tariffs sealed the deal. I'm not claiming to know he's right, but it DOES seem different from the way you characterize his argument. It's after all possible--again, I'm not making the claim, only speculating--the industry WAS dying as a result of being unable to compete with Japan OUTSIDE American borders as a result of the cost of American labor versus Japanese labor (we obviously can't impose tariffs anywhere but here) and that THAT was what was killing the American steel industry.

[@jiadizhang4107]

The poor African countries have feee trade lol? Do they even have markets in a modern sense?

[@NoSenatorson]

I remember going to Mexico and the corn tortillas were made from US corn. Nonetheless, they were somehow more tasty than the tortillas I can buy at home. Are we exporting our best corn products to other countries and keeping the driest tasteless corn for ourselves?

[@CpheirhBeauty-sp4gi]

Can anyone help me with a strategy of studying economics,😢I found it so hard to understand economics

[@StudyBoy-by7wp]

This lecture useful for My M.A. exam..

[@BradCartwrightEconomics]

Excellent! Good luck!

[@user-rf4qj9bs7l]

Great video, however Saudi Arabia has second largest oil reserves.

[@mactek6033]

Economics is not a hard science. It is a soft science. Any economic theory as complex as global trade cannot be written in stone. China does very well with its protectionism.

[@jackmcslay]

China is in a gigantic bubble and the vast majority of it's population is under terrible living conditions

[@GHE-bv1pf]

Japan, Korea, and China all grew fast due to their state controlled economy and protectionism.

[@fluff5800]

They don't want protectionism because this will make developing countries rich! Protectionism is the road to overtaking those at the top, look at china it is the fastest successful growing economy that employs protectionism and now it is being vilified ( ex china is dying, china market collapse) meanwhile you see articles "china is economic treath, alarming growth of china. I mean come on! Which is it?!

[@LB-py9ig]

Gee, imagine if everything needed to fight a pandemic was manufactured in that pandemic's country of origin. That would sure ruin free trade wouldn't it? Good thing this is just a hypothetical right?

[@kenroylarmond7736]

'Arguments for protectionism' however your market fundamentalist bias is more obvious.

[@ItsDeanDavis]

Kenroy merely demonstrated the fact your friend's view seemed to bear clear distinction.

[@chinmaygupta1530]

Then you should go argue with the IB. These points are fully based on the syllabus of their course.

[@mrjamesho]

Yeah it’s important that he mention the other side

[@flock221]

because they are politically popular

[@sergeyermolenko8605]

And why are they more politically popular?

[@flock221]

Sergey Ermolenko because it is easy to blame job losses on free trade while touting a protectionist rhetoric. protectionism also can move a sort of nationalistic feeling in people that leads them to support it. it is a lot easier to get everyday people to support protectionism than free trade. protectionism seems to make sense on a really basic level and it is perhaps more hard to actively realize the effects of protectionism.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

A PROBLEM WITH THE ECONOMY, NATIONAL AND GLOBAL: The population is doubling at quicker and quicker rates. There are not enough jobs for everybody and certainly not enough jobs that pay a living wage to support a family on, even sometimes even only a family of one. The supply of workers is way greater than the demand for the work needing to be done. Plus add to that all the machines and robots taking over many of the jobs that people used to do. With the excess supply of workers, businesses will pay dirt cheap wages knowing that somebody somewhere will probably do the job for what the business is willing to pay. That or the business complains that they have jobs available that no workers want to do for the pay that the business is willing to pay. Plus add to all that, wages don't keep up with the true cost of inflation for many people. Even if some people get raises, inflation outpaces their raises and they still fall behind as far as buying power is concerned. And consider also: If species don't get off of this Earth and out of this solar system, then we are ALL going to die and go extinct. Space travel has gotten more expensive just in my lifetime. Even with constant tiny increases in inflation, what exactly is space travel going to cost in the next one hundred, one thousand, one million years from now? Economic inflation just might help kill us all. If no conscious entities are left one day from this Earth, then all of life itself would all be ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things, at least from a species from Earth perspective.

[@LB-py9ig]

Nope, the global population is set to be half what it is or less by the end of the century. No one is having sex or getting married. Not that it matters as, even if we did, everyone is also much less fertile.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@LB-py9ig Not that it matters, but this copy and paste from my files: LIFE ITSELF IS ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS. Ask yourself and try to honestly and sincerely answer: 1. How exactly do galaxies form? 2. How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped? 3. What exactly does that mean for species that exist in a spiral shaped galaxy? Current Analysis: Long Term: (Short Version): * Species stay on this Earth: They all eventually die and go extinct. * Species leave this Earth: They all eventually die and go extinct. (No exceptions at this time). 1. Everybody will die one day from something. 2. Everybody will forget everything they ever knew and experienced. 3. Everybody will be forgotten one day in future eternity as if they never ever existed at all in the first place. (OSICA) * Life itself only matters to life itself, only as long as life itself still exists. It's just that life itself is not always going to exist, at least not from this Earth. For every moment that passes, one less moment being alive AND one moment closer to being not alive. (Or so the current analysis would indicate). Currently: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA) Eternal Death is Eternal Peace and Eternal Peace awaits us all. ** Can we change the ending? Doesn't look like it. All life on and from this Earth is eventually going to die and go extinct. No exceptions at this time. This Earth and all on it are all just a waste of spacetime in this universe. Not knowing the future does not mean the future is not going to occur as posted. People just won't know until it occurs.

[@ehesvadkutya]

@@charlesbrightman4237 jesus christ

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@ehesvadkutya Jesus is dead. Died about 2000 years ago and is still dead and is not coming back.

[@fairyjimins]

U r going against every topic...

[@DucksDeLucks]

Economics does not exist in a vacuum. Would the US really want Russia or China to have a near-monopoly on weapons manufacturing? That could happen in a true free market. How about food? Countries that cannot feed themselves are at risk of starvation in wartime. Just ask Germany. Japan went to war against the US because we refused to sell them oil, and they had no other good source. If Japan had subsidized an oil industry they would not have had to fight the US, which fight they lost, bringing down their whole political system.

[@mkm1015]

It's very interesting that nowadays 90% of economists, the World Bank and the IMF and all the fucking think-tanks are demanding that poor countries implement methods that didn't make the rich countries never used themselves. The US, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, South Korea, China, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan etc. all became wealthy countries combining protectionism, subsidies & state investement in strategic industries. Every single one of them. Poor countries had bigger growth in the 1960s and 1970s when they did pretty much combine all these measures. Since 1980s they experience nothing but misery thanks to the Reagan-Thatcher voodoo economics.

[@louiethegreater1]

Wow, Brad you must never have studied US History. The US was founded on protectionism. As a result of that protected economy the greatest and most efficient manufacturing economy was produced, leading to a middleclass that was the envy of the world. Please think before you make these videos.