Protectionism & Mercantilism superior to Globalisation?

This is a major thesis worthy topic- simply want to start some basic discussion

I assert globalisation is a code-word for State-corporatism.

Globalisation and its sister Free Trade are principally proponents of the US.
It does not benefit all States equally- in fact opposite.

Compare Japanese and CHinese economic models.
Japan is one of the few mercantilist economies remaining. It's watched very closely the rise & fall of European trade empires and very cleverly filled the gap in Asia- becoming the largest single investor and donor/lender.
China is similar & incredibly clever- realising they hold the ace of infrastructure on command, limitless cheap labour & political stability- a capitalists' wet dream.
China allows only joint ventures thus intellectual capital retained or even gained for future benefit.
Land can only be obtained by a 75 yr lease- only the gov owns land.
China's GDP will dwarf Germany very soon & be 3rd largest globally.

Are these superior models for UK? economy?

Answer:
By redefining terms I guess you could say yes is no. But lets be real. What people call Globalization is free enterprize. The States basically get out of the way. That is the superior model. The only countries that are at a disadvantage are those that don't have a free enterprize system.

2nd the British came up the the Merchantilist system and it worked good for them, the Dutch, Germans, Belgians, etc as long as they had colonies which provided them with a cheap source of raw materials and a closed market for their manufactured goods. After the American Civil war the U.S. government joined in the game and never got out of it.

Merchantilism is characterized by protective tariffs used to protect particular industries. In the U.S. for example we have protective tariffs on steel, sugar, Lumber and automobiles. The import limits and tariffs on Japanese cars in the U.S. virtually destroyed the U.S. auto industry. During the 70's we got shoddy gas hogs, and unions got big raises and pension benefits that make current American cars uncompetitive on the world market.

In Japan a steak cost about 5 times what it cost in the U.S. because of Japanese tariffs on imported beef. Rice is also more expensive because of tariffs to protect the Japanese rice farmers.

Protective tariffs benefit a single industry at the expense of the rest of the economy. The steel tariffs in the U.S. cost the U.S. economy 8 jobs lost in other industries consuming steel for every steel worker job saved. Sugar tariffs in the U.S. forced candy makers out of the U.S. into Canada and Mexico where they can purchase cheaper sugar from South America and the Carribean and the candy is shipped back into the U.S.

It makes no sense that if the Japanese want to rip off their citizens by forcing them to pay 5 times the market value for their steaks, for the US to make its people pay more for their cars. Or in the case of the British for them to make their people pay a couple dollars more per gallon of fuel. Tariffs have been discribed as two guys in a boat and one guy shoots a hole in his end of the boat. So to get even with him the other guy shoots a hole in his end of the boat. The result is they both just sink faster.

I would suggest that instead of looking at China that the UK look at Ireland. They've started dismanteling their socialist system and lowering taxes and have made tremendous strides in improving their economy. Freedom is the answer not more government meddling.
I disagree with your intial premise that Japan and China are mercantil economies
Your question moves from one about globalisation to the UK economy. Let's tackle the last first. The UK has been a great mercantile empire and during its heyday was also very protectionist. It enjoyed certain advantages which it exploited - military power, technological superiority, cheap labour from the countryside, rising social aspirations, an entrepreneurial class, etc. But things are much different today and the advantages enjoyed by Japan and China do not obtain for the UK today. Therefore, they cannot be models for the UK's economy.
As for the other question about globalisation, I would ask, 'Superior for whom and what [purpose, on what criteria]? The UK, like the USA, benefits from globalisation because many of its industries and companies are highly reliant on the global market for it goods and its supplies. As an island, we are limited in our natural resources, and while the US is a bit better off, it needs oil and many other raw materials from other countries. But as far as the countries plundered by us, is globalisation superior? Well, some would argue that at least it allows the African miner to eke out a living even though it may be $2 or less a day, or an Indian child who may otherwise be playing in the fields with nothing to do and no school to attend anyway. But globalisation is jolly good thing, as far as we are concerned, and at best, it will allow wealth to trickle down to the poorer countries in the form of crumbs - but, hey, at least they have something.
You might want to check out some of the publications on this link:

http://search.live.com/results.aspx?scop...

I agree with you that it is worthy topic for a post grad thesis.

My own purely personal point of view is that "globalisation" is unstoppable and that the process of internationalisation of the economy will proceed apace. Any national economy that adopts protectionism will do so at the cost of the current living standards of the mass of their population.
The Mercantilist fallacy evolves around the concept that imports (goods and services produced abroad and sold into a country) are harmful for the economy whereas exports (goods and services produced domestically and sold abroad) are beneficial, which only serves for inefficient domestic producers to sustain their competitiveness (having a significant market share). Howevers, the only valid reason for which the government tends to impose methods of protectionism such as a tariff (a tax on imports) is to protect inefficient producers. The only “benefits” created by the protection of these inefficient producers are the increased government revenues. This doesn't favor consumers seeing that they lose welfare and there is a decrease in the variety and quantity of products available. Therefore the welfare that producers gain is a diversion of welfare from consumers to producers.

Moreover the assumption that governments need to increase their revenues usually proves to be false because the only reason for lack of government resources is either due to their misallocation or because the government has tapped into all its potential moneymaking sources. In short Mercantilist policy works against the consumer because producers use it to remain in the market without having to spend money on increasing their efficiency. This harms the economy because producers don’t have the incentive of international competitiveness to become more efficient.

Furthermore the infant industry argument for protectionism (developing industries need time to develop before they compete at an international scale) gives firms a reason not to expand because while they remain localized they have guaranteed protection. In addition to that, throughout the years it is the big industries to which methods of protectionism are imposed like the steal industry because it is there that there is competition and that governments fear firms will remain out of business so the infant industry argument has never actually applied to any industry requesting protection.

Finally tariffs are an inefficient anti-dumping policy because once countries enter a market they have to offer stabily low prices since due to free trade another country will come and dominate the market when the price is increased.

Also through specialization we decrease unemployment globally because resources are diverted into industries where the country has comparative advantage. However through protectionism efficient producers are driven out of the market because demand is misallocated to the goods of inefficient domestic producers thus leaving workers in industries that produce high quality goods unemployed.
Protectionism only hurts the host economy. The solution is to foster more efficient industries.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:
  • 1 Euro is equal to how many rupees?
  • What could we say about the pattern of production and trade in this case?
  • Macro econ question??
  • In China, Why are they trying unlock consumer power by making the economy more like that of the U.S..?
  • Any good TOPICS in my MACROECONOMICS PAPER??
  • How would the world be if international trade were outlawed?
  • Did governments exist before currency?
  • What are some books that deal with economics and how people dont always makethe most economically sound choice
  • What is the feeling of people in Ireland (Eire) about the inflation and the euro ?