Troll Alert

I promise I will get back to more regular posting as soon as I settle into some new responsibilities that are taking up many more hours a day, but for now, you can catch me being a troll on someone else's site. The question posed, in the end, was:

Can we reconcile free-trade economics to our quaint, but truly conservative, localism? If so, how? Or is “protectionism” the answer?

My comment:

Nathan,

I am 90% right there with you. Röpke, virtue, community, and a limited government that is of, by, and for the people instead of corporations, lobbyists, and lawyers. I try to put limits on the demonizing of BIG, however. Your position is tenuous when you clamor against big companies on one hand and would seek ways to limit/regulate them, yet on the other hand you clamor when those same companies move their jobs overseas. If, and that may be a very big if, but if a company can succeed without government help, and without externalizing its social and environmental responsibilities to the public, who are you or anyone else to say they are too big for their britches?

I am very much a believer in subsidiarity and localism, but that does not mean we can forgo participation in a global community. To further James’ and Bruce’s comments above, I may have my own ideas about tariffs, but I would not label myself as a protectionist, but as one seeking to even the playing field among other countries that compete unfairly.

American workers and American businesses still need to compete with the products and services of a global marketplace, and I believe we can do so if government would end corporate welfare and enact more sound and efficient tax, regulatory, and monetary policies. This would be creative destruction of an altogether different sort.

Nathan's response:

Justus:

Your position is tenuous when you clamor against big companies on one hand and would seek ways to limit/regulate them, yet on the other hand you clamor when those same companies move their jobs overseas. If, and that may be a very big if, but if a company can succeed without government help, and without externalizing its social and environmental responsibilities to the public, who are you or anyone else to say they are too big for their britches?

I, as is probably obvious, shall not fully concede this point — because that I think that inherent virtue (perhaps I’m playing a little too loosely with that word presently — in smallness. You do, however, make a fair point — and offer a very important caveat with that “very big if”.

I briefly read your bit about tariffs, and while I’m not comfortable with the fundamental point, where you agree with Kristof about sweatshops, I’m not unaware of the at-least-partial truth in the point, and, more relevant, I think that I probably fall in the same boat as you respecting tariffs. Parity matters.

believe we can do so if government would end corporate welfare and enact more sound and efficient tax, regulatory, and monetary policies.

Sign me up.

The distinction between parity and protectionism is an important one. I would like the US Government to have a carrot & stick approach to both improving the economies of the world's poorest countries and ensuring American businesses and workers compete on a fairly level playing field. I think tariffs can be used as a tool in this regard, as long a large portion of the tariffs is used to bring good regulatory/legal frameworks to less developed countries.