Back the failed socialism of the Plymouth Colony?
Free trade works among free nations
Across State lines, as embodied in the Constitution.
Foreign trade was always meant to be regulated and taxed, as it was the original source of revenue for the Federal government.
Well, it has feathered the nest of many a Florida sugar grower, at the expense of the American consumer who has to pay much more for sugar at the grocery store, and at the expense of American candy manufacturing.
An artificially high price for sugar in the USA due to protectionism of the US sugar producing industry has driven many a job and factory that used to produce candy or chocolate overseas.
But we still have our heavily government subsidized sugar growers! Good job! NOT!
We could easily have a policy of libertarian, free wheeling capitalism within our national borders but be protectionist and non-libertarian when it comes to commerce and trade with other nations. In fact that is how we used to be and tariffs were the main source of revenue for our young Federal Gov’t. Alcohol and tobacco taxes were also important.
These three main revenue streams are what the Feds ran their operations on
We have had mission creep. Now we want to protect the world with troops, jobs and money.
The statement is true to a certain extent, but the Southern states supported free trade as they were exporters of the raw products of cotton and tobacco.
One of the reasons I don’t think the Tea Party can be considered an actual party or anything more than an anti-tax movement, is that it (whatever the TP actually is) has not addressed this important issue.
The argument over trade has been going on since the founding. There’s a long history of both free trade AND protectionism that both worked AND didn’t work but somewhere in the middle America became wealthy.
Free trade only works in the long term with a common government between the free traders.
I think right now the best idea we can aim for is a revenue-generating value-added import tariff of about 22% with the aim of making domestic production and imports revenue-neutral to the federal government. Then let everyone do whatever they want without further government interference!
The Civil War was about protectionism, not slavery. Slavery was a throw in, a bargaining chip.
The protectionists won the Civil War.
People who hate free trade hate it because they hate competition.
This said, countries certainly have to make sure they are not being abused by other countries re: dumping, price manipulation, etc.
Furthermore, war creates additional concern and exceptions for marshalling raw materials and controlling production needed for weapons and materiel.
Free Trade does not exist. It has never existed since the day the king, the prior or the Earl took his cut in taxes.
We need less regulation and taxation. That's the way TEA Parties can be tied into this. Taxation always hurts trade - whether international or intranational.
2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.
3. This has been particularly the case with G. B., whose commercial vocabulary is the parent of ours. A primary object of her commercial regulations is well known to have been the protection and encouragement of her manufactures
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces18.html
America was founded as a racist nation. From Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
It makes just as much sense to cite that in favor of slavery as to cite the article's title in favor of protectionism.
So you SUPPORT the mercantilism that led to American Revolution.
Sorry, I’ll stick with Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations.
The United States was not founded as a protectionist country. First of all, you must understand that the primary source of government funds back in the late 1700s and early 1800s were taxes on imports. Thus, it would appear that the government was protectionist, but the real goal was revenue, not protectionism.
However, the US acted protectionist many times when it went to war, most notably against Britain in 1812 and France in 1798.
The United States relied on trade to survive and grow. Yes, tariffs were imposed (they reached 50% in 1828, then fell to 15% by 1857, before rising again to 47% in 1862) but they were largely for revenue generation, not protectionism. And yes, many especially in the north argued for high tariffs to protect American manufacturing. But the Southern Democratic-Republicans ran the country for most of its early years (Jefferson-Madison-Monroe for 24 years). Except when funds were needed for the War of 1812 and America tried to block British shipping during that war, they were predominantly free-trade.
[In contrast to the Tariff of Abominations that John Quincy Adams tried to pass in 1828 which was designed not to generate needed revenue, but had the purpose of “the protection of one branch of industry at the expense of others.”]