« Uncle Sam's Mission | Main | My Brand of Economics» Don Boudreaux
August 12, 2007
Protectionism Reveals Its True Colors
Don Boudreaux
"Protectionism" ultimately rests upon the threat to use violence against innocent persons engaged in peaceful commerce. Most of the time the coercive nature of protectionism is concealed -- out of view -- because consumers and producers harmed by it are deterred by the threat of violence from freely trading: the coercive nature of protectionism remains largely hidden. The thieves persuade the state to perform the threats; it all looks so clean and antiseptic and 'policy-ish.'
Sometimes, though, protectionism reveals its disfigured, snarling face and its nasty, swinging fists -- as made plain by this NPR report on some French winemakers who are violently interfering with the commerce of innocent people for no reason other than to prevent consumers from patronizing other sellers.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Trade | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/20774304
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Protectionism Reveals Its True Colors:
Comments
"Protectionism" ultimately rests upon the threat to use violence against innocent persons engaged in peaceful commerce.
The condensed brilliance in that sentence makes it more like poetry than prose. I think I'll have it engraved and mounted, with due credit, of course.
Posted by: Flash Gordon | Aug 12, 2007 11:24:29 AM
Where's save_the_rustbelt to tell us that it is instead the peaceful merchants who are raping the people with his usual twisted logic and total lack of concern for reality?
Posted by: Erik | Aug 12, 2007 11:52:58 AM
In France, such behaviours are, alas, part of our lives, especially in southern France, but not exclusively.
It begun in the 70's, when some winemakers and fruit growers in southern France took trucks bringing products from spain and Italy, attacked them, and spread their contents on the roads, of course with journalists surrounding the event.
They wouldn't have dared such things during the de gaulle's Era (60's), but in the 70's, the power didn't react, by weakness.
One of the most prominent political people of these times was... Jacques Chirac (prime minister from 74 to 76 - he had many friends in governments after), who made all his long political career by adressing all the demands from the rural world.
it's common to see dissatisfied peasants leaving tons of manure in the courtyards of official building in order to pretest against "prices too low", "too many foreign imports", and so on. Not only these actions never end before courts, but they are mostly followed by apeasing decisions from the power: special aids, special tax refund, and so on.
Not every farmer behaves like that. But those who work in the most subsidized businesses clearly belong to this violent rural trend.
That's today socialized France...
Posted by: vincent | Aug 12, 2007 12:47:17 PM
vincent, do you think sarko will have a different way of handling this than chirac did?
Posted by: shawn | Aug 12, 2007 3:16:40 PM
A very revealing point by made by vincent is that the most vocal proponents of protectionism and subsidies are those who benefit the most from it. The appeasement of the prior period just fed the monster we see today. We see a reflection of that in our own Farm Bill.
Posted by: M. Hodak | Aug 12, 2007 4:11:56 PM
Iowa stands much to gain from corn price supports, and ethanol subsidy. Iowa stands to lose if import duties on sugar are dimished.
Iowa is among the earliest states to hold primary elections.
Coincidence? Sure....
Posted by: True_Liberal | Aug 12, 2007 5:10:36 PM
Violence in protectionism? No offense, but Korea where I live has this down to a science, unfortunately. Check out the excrement throwing Korean beef farmers: http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2878042
Posted by: Drambuie_man | Aug 12, 2007 7:11:05 PM
M. Hodak -
"...the most vocal proponents of protectionism and subsidies are those who benefit the most from it."
I think protectionism (and subsidies, or any government assistance) actually do a lot of damage to the industries that "benefit" from them. I grew up on a farm in the UK, where farmers have been heavily subsidized since WW2. My fathers generation who grew up in this environment have the attitude that the solution to any problem is to complain to the government - not in the French way, but by quiet, effective lobbying. This is because they have been told and shown that the government will always be there for them; many farmers seem to believe that this is a god given right. The damage done by this to industry and enterprise is vast.
Things are getting better. The structure of the subsidies has changed in a way that makes it easier to reduce them, and my brother's generation of farmers have a more commercial attitude. Also many smaller farmers are retiring and the younger farmers with larger businesses realise they would benefit relative to smaller farmers from the removal of subsidies.
An industry receiving government help - whether through trade barriers or price support, or whatever - is like an individual taking heroin. It might feel really good to begin with, but in the end it really screws you up.
Posted by: Robert Scarth | Aug 13, 2007 4:31:02 AM
Well said, Robert Scarth, well said indeed.
"An industry receiving government help - whether through trade barriers or price support, or whatever - is like an individual taking heroin. It might feel really good to begin with, but in the end it really screws you up."
What is tragic is that like junkies most people who receive subsidies never look beyond their next fix and never see that they have a problem.
Posted by: vidyohs | Aug 13, 2007 9:13:23 AM
Listening to the linked audio I was struck once again by a question that has plagued me for 35 years.
Why is it that the socialist thumbsuckers, the rapers of their neighbor's coffers, can muster people willing to fight and bleed for their right to rape, yet we the raped, the capitalist, the conservative, can't find anyone to fight and bleed for our right to be left alone?
Arrogant latins flood our streets demanding reward for their law breaking, and we do nothing.
Arrogant corporations buy congress critters right in front of our eyes and we do nothing.
Arrogrant congress critters buy votes right in front of our eyes and we do nothing.
Listening to the thumbsucking socialist on that NPR audio, I was forced to at least admire their willingness to force their right to rape.
Posted by: vidyohs | Aug 13, 2007 9:35:54 AM
Hi Erik:
I think Don has had a little too much caffeine, I'm certain in the process of getting his PhD someone warned him about gross overgeneralization and casual empiricism.
Actually today I'm not too far from the place where the barons of industry "hired" the National Guard to machine gun workers who wanted a union, speaking of violence.
I hope you and Don didn't get any of those faulty Chinese-made tires, the Chinese are washing their hands of the deal, hanging the American wholesaler and the customers out to dry.
But the tires were cheaper.
I'm not in favor or protectionism, just a more level playing field. And if Exxon can get welfare from the federal government, why not displaced workers? Just wondering.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Aug 13, 2007 11:35:47 AM
S T R, if you have read this site for more than five minutes, then you know that welfare for Exxon does not have any significant support around here.
Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Aug 13, 2007 11:46:42 AM
Don Boudreaux's point seems to be that the true nature of protectionism is revealed by its most radical and thoughtless proponents. Does this mean I can seek out some childish anarchist manifesto and claim it is the true face of libertarianism?
Posted by: PM | Aug 13, 2007 2:02:41 PM
"yet we the raped, the capitalist, the conservative, can't find anyone to fight and bleed for our right to be left alone?"
... too busy creating the national wealth?
Posted by: johnnybonk | Aug 13, 2007 5:56:33 PM
@ Shawn (8/12 3:16) : although it's a bit off topic, here's my guess:
Today, the main difference we can see between Sarkozy And Chirac is purely formal. But the big changes promised by the candidate Sarkozy don't seem to be any more on the agenda of the president Sarkozy. And especially, no real libertarian evolution is to be awaited from him. Except if its current attentism is purely tactical, but I don't believe it.
an example: a few days ago, some anti GMO "militants" (politically correct word for "violent vandals") went (as usual) in some GMO sewed fields and devastated the crops. this kind of action is regular. The policemen were there... And did nothing else than observing, as usual during the Chirac years. The vandal leader has been prosecuted in the past for such actions, but Chirac gave him a presidential amnesty, so this f...ing bastard (named J. Bove) could be... Candidate to the presidential race, and grabbed about 1% of the votes. As a result, he did again some GMO burying, and this time, the police just looked at the scene without intervention. So for the moment, no change in power's reaction to such exactions.
We will know if this attitude is only a tactical pause, a preparation for further action, or if he is just another Chirac, in a few monthes. Some measures, not very popular among unionists, will be discussed before our congress from september to the end of 2007. If Sarko stands to his campaign promises, and doesn't capitulate before the upcoming unavoidable strikes, we could believe that at least some things will change in the near future, and that the respect of property rights will come back as something that must be enforced. But if he and his staff surrenders before the unions, as he already began to do about the university reform, we will know that Sarko will be another Chirac, with a more fashionable and dynamic look.
I'm very pessimistic.
Posted by: vincent | Aug 13, 2007 7:09:25 PM
johnnybonk - Yeah I know that is the correct answer, but wouldn't it be nice to just once a year get together a few hundred thousand of us who 'make', and stomp mudholes in the butts of those who 'take'.
Maybe even match the illegal immigrants in numbers to show the world that we aren't going to continue to take it anymore?
Ahh, I can dream of a day when the creater is as organized as the thief.
Posted by: vidyohs | Aug 13, 2007 9:18:57 PM
Those protectionist French winemakers are just a bunch of terroir-ists...
Posted by: HWinVA | Aug 14, 2007 5:56:38 PM
Yes, protectionism is poisonous and defective indeed.
In Slovenia, where I live, the protectionist trade policy dominated the public policy for a long time. The consequences were terrible of course. You could see the people waiting in long lines at the Austrian and Italian border to enter those countries and buy most-wanted products such as delicious chocolate and mostly food and clothing since empty stocks and shortages were happening daily.
Previously, when Slovenia was a part of communist Yugoslavia, quotas were very high and tariff rates exceeded 100 percent and thus "product smuggling" became the core activity of the grey economy at an economic turmoil when currency devaluation and hyperinflation accelerated Slovenia's five-year economic depression.
I'm not surprised by the acts of protectionism in France. The most obvious consequence of import restrictions, bans and price controls over imported goods, is that customers pay a higher price for the products which they demand. On the other hand, protectionist claims signalize a weak product performance of the cartelized companies as they dislike the competitive and deregulated product markets and open customer targeting. Instead, they lobby the policymakers to impose anti-competitive regulation and thus force the customers to buy particular products at a fixed and regulated supply.
Posted by: Rocky_Libertarian | Aug 31, 2007 1:00:34 PM
I hear so much complaining from people who have ignorantly taken the protectionism side in the free trade debate and argue that we are giving away U.S. jobs and hurting the economy. The negative effects of protectionism should be quite obvious by now. Adam Smith had it figured out in the 1770s, so why are we still not able to educate the general public enough about economics to understand that free trade GOOD, protectionism BAD?
Posted by: Chris Schmitz | Oct 15, 2007 9:35:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
