Talk:Protectionism/Archives/2013

Added reference and history

Added Lincoln reference. Lincoln described himself as a "high-tariff Henry Clay Whig" which he and the Whigs and the National Republican's of J.Q. Adams, and the Hamiltonians of Alexander Hamilton fame (and with agreement from Washington) were. --Northmeister 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

History...Reading the comments here, some do not understand American Economic History. America built herself and 'real' capitalism on protective tariffs. From 1860-1930's such was the policy and from then subsidy became the alternative to high tariffs. --Northmeister 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A Protective Tariff is anything 40% and over historically. Anything under 40% is and was called a Revenue Tariff and this Jefferson, the Jacksonians, and early Democrats believed in and fought with the Federalists-National Republicans-GOP with until the 1930's when FDR reversed the protective tariff for revenue only through reciprocity (you lower yours to revenue basis and we will) and subsidy of industry. This worked well in the 1950's, 1960's but has failed us since the 1970's that had the double pain of an end to our stable currency (now on a floating market - thus why our dollar is becoming increasingly worthless and why prices always rise cutting the benefit of a higher wage). JUST A LITTLE HISTORY FOLKS. The Free Trade Agenda was loathed by American patriots from 1776 until the 1970's and was not and is not Capitalism as it was built in America. Read Hamilton, Carey (Lincoln's economist), The GOP platforms prior to modern era, and the ideas of Jefferson especially after the War of 1812 when Britain tried to kill our new factories with massive dumping of her goods. --Northmeister 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

HEAR HEAR! Jefferson's idea of reciprocity should also be considered protectionist, since the free-traders scoff at Americanism.68.106.248.211 (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha Joon-Chang, Cambridge Professor, covers a lot of the plus side of the history of protectionism. It is missing here. But, for reasons of his own, Jefferson and the Slaveocrats were the laissez-faire party of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.7.19 (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Domestic protectionism

Why does this article limit protectionism to international protectionism? Protectionism can also be domestic. One state in the United States can have protectionist measures against other states. Or the national government can make it illegal for businesses to compete against other businesses including government owned businesses, and so on. Straight Cowboy 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point

I think this has come up in recent US court cases involving restrictions on interstate wine sales and shipments.Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Commerce Clause in the Constitution prevents states from engaging in protectionism. Free-trade is good between the 50 states, free-trade is not good in all situations on international trade. The world is not black and white, the dogmatic free-traders will never understand.68.106.248.211 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Politics, Historical Context, and Inter-Industry

• politics and historical context: The emphasis on international protectionism has been accumulating since the Laisse-Faire authors - because domestic protectionism is less politically palatable/survivable. However, in Nations, Smith details as many (if not more) domestic examples as international. This does not mean that domestic protectionism does/has not exist(ed); but it tends to be ignored or stamped out, as compared to international protectionism. It is inaccurate for this article to take/push such a narrow view - and in fact it is a perpetuation of politicking (though likely unintentional).

• inter-industry: the most common form of domestic protectionism takes place amongst industries - one industry is propped up via subsidies - which can be to the detriment of other industries, and to the detriment of innovation within the favored industry.

Blablablob (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's called corporate welfare, or you could say that industry has a "Comparative Advantage" by being in a state with corrupt politicians. Who are you to say that corporate welfare decreases innovation? They simply have a "Comparative Advantage", the way China has a "Comparative Advantage" with cheap labor.98.165.6.225 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

corporate welfare is another can of worms politically speaking, but yes subsidies are sometimes called corporate welfare. However, the spectrum of subsidies is broader than this, e.g. agricultural subsidies are not generally referred to as corporate welfare. and the key term is `can` as in it may be to the detriment of innovation - e.g. it can and sometime does drain limited resources away from the nascent industries and technologies that contribute to the strength of a nation in its future. Your usage of `comparative advantage` is a bit odd ... do you know to what it refers, or are you guessing based on the words? Regarding your comment about China, their cheep labor is what is called an absolute advantage. The essence of Comparative Advantage is that a nation can make more profitable use of its limited resources by focusing on its strengths. On the other hand, if your just angry and venting, then it doesn't really matter; but blogs are much better for that - they have more sympathetic audiences, and many are geared for opinion and commentary, whereas an encyclopedia is about dry facts, not argument over what to do. Blablablob (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolute Advantage= "The capability to produce more of a given product using less of a given resource than a competing entity en.wiktionary.org" Cheap labor or slavery is not an absolute advantage because it uses more labor inefficiently to produce the same product. Cheap labor and slavery is a "comparative advantage" because some countries abolished slavery where other countries have not.98.165.6.225 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think domestic protectionism in the intrastate-meaning is almost unique for the US; as most unions do not allow states to do such restrictions. I can't see a principal difference from international protectionism in that case. It just a bit fuzzy on what a "nation" is... Subsidies is of course a type of protection, but not usually seen as "protectionism". I think the article is clearer with the previous definition. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction, before and after does include subsidies as a bullet point, so the definition in the introduction as a whole has not changed. Subsidies and reverse tariffs have been used and advocated in much the same way as tariffs and quotas - they are part of the same game (if knights and bishops are a part of chess, then so are rooks and pawns). It is artificial, even ingenuine, to not include subsidies in the game of protectionism. If you read economics journals and publications, and follow international trade negotiation, you will see subsidies mentioned all the time. Blablablob (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Current world trends" section of article

There seems to be something missing in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section.Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced lie. Will someone please delete this consensus lie?

"However, according to several surveys of professional economists, 95 percent of economists support free trade, the highest percentage of agreement in any category."

This is the same type of bias claiming there is a consensus on Global Warming. The source of this statement doesn't even provide the 95% number. Second the source is the India Times, India is a biased ingrate beneficiary of American foreign aid (free trade).68.106.248.211 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

done202.76.173.243 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please correct this blatent bias? India is a biased ingrate beneficiary of American foreign aid (free trade).68.106.248.211 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) . Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The entire article is a criticism of "Protectionism" (which in itself sounds to me like a perjorative term), or at least a balancing of the pros and cons of free trade. So why is a heavily non-neutral Criticism section needed? --70.142.54.69 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is the lack of attention to the impact of protectionism on the poor. When trade is restricted, poor producers suffer at least as much as poor consumers. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, how does protecting poor people's livelihoods cause them to suffer? Secondly, how exactly does free trade benefit anyone other than the very wealthy? Also, free trade will drive poor producers out of business first.174.130.37.250 (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The "protection" is not "protection of poor people's livelihoods". It's the protection of companies producing bad food, bad cars, at too high prices against imports from countries where those things are produced cheaper. So the poor suffer from this "protection" because they will have to pay too much for bad products. And the poor in those cheaper countries lose their job. Joepnl (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal of protectionism is not to produce bad food, bad cars, and high prices, but to protect the middle class from foreign quasi-slave labor. If slave labor is something to be desired then why do the anarcho-capitalist claim that slavery would have died out in the south because it was bad? Furthermore, items made by cheap foreign labor are not cheaper for the consumer in the 1st world, just like cotton made by slaves was not cheaper before 1860.98.165.6.225 (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article should not only deal with the goal of protectionism (surely, we all have well-meaning goals) but also its results. Also, isn't "quasi-slave labour" a synonym for "not slave labour, but I'm going to switch in the next sentence to arguing on the basis that it is slave labour". 212.56.120.79 (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Facts are unbiased

I see that a lot of the discussion is focused on the good or ill effects of protectionism - but none of that is directly relevant to the factual content of an encyclopedia.

Whether you see protectionism as good, or as bad, it still has the same meaning, the same mechanisms, and so forth. Likewise, if nations do or don't play fair.

Position pieces have different, better outlets than Wikipedia: political websites, blogs and etcetera.

The discussion page of an encyclopedia is a better place than the article for potentially biased content, of course - but ultimately, the primary purpose of the discussion page is discussion of factual content and the presentation thereof. Blablablob (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: this article needs more facts. Here's one: there are no examples of highly successful, prosperous nations that practice highly restrictive protectionism, and there are no examples of unsuccessful, poor naitons that practice free (or, near-free) trade. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The United STates became a highly prosperous nation between 1870 and 1912, where America First Republicans ran the country, not treacherous internationalist free traders.98.165.6.225 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing list of protectionist policies

I have expanded on the list of protectionist policies and moved it to its own section. Some of the policies of the list are not actually protectionist policies, although they are related to them. For instance, a subsidy on exports is equivalent to a subsidy on imports in a floating exchange rate economy, and will increase trade, not decrease it. Please comment here on what you think the list should look like. lk (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your inclusion of subsidies...

I see your point regarding technically protectionist; but an encyclopedia article should reflect usage of the term, which is broader than the definition you would find in pedagogical source. That includes economics discourse, as well as economics centric coverage and considerations of politics. Blablablob (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Boundaries is more accurate

I would suggest that defining protectionism along political boundaries is more accurate. Historical examples abound, as do recent and current - such as in Europe, and emerging economies. Additionally, this would facilitate more depth. Blablablob (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that tax on trade across political boundaries is a more accurate description of tariffs. However, with the term protectionism, it's a bit less clear. Do you mean that the lead should be changed thus?

Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade across political boundaries, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods ....

I'm agnostic about this change, but go ahead if you feel it would be better. lk (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

something like that Blablablob (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's particularly contentious. Go for it. lk (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope

After looking over the history and discussion on other articles, I expect this article and talk page to evolve a great deal. So some of what I'm putting in here is for the long view. I expect that other authors are reading this material, just as I've recently read over the discussion pages of other articles.

Administrative Protectionism

Regarding expanding and yet limiting the scope of what protectionism constitutes, I'll bring up the idea of administrative protectionism - e.g. the USDA as a form of protectionism. I would say that it is not, because the USDA was not instituted to prop up, or protect any industry; that protectionism is at some level intentional, with the specific motive of protecting a factory, company, industry, or simply the domestic economy generally.

On the other hand, an obtusely bureaucratic domain can achieve the protectionist aim through red tape - and this is often considered protectionism. In motivation and effect, there may only be an essentially ostensible difference between licensing and permits, and outright quotas - some nations are (have been) notorious for this. On the other hand, corruption in administrative bodies is yet an other phenomena, and not protectionism in itself, but may come up in free trade talks and in discussions of a nation's progress toward free/efficient markets. Reluctance to redress, may reflect protectionist proclivities of that nation.

Earmarks and Pork

Earmarks and pork are usually not considered protectionist subsidies.

others

There are several other candidate mechanisms as well, and each should be considered case by case. Organic yes, but still logical and organized. Blablablob (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Protectionism e.g. by Standards

Please, take note, that even countries that proclaim free trade, follow implicit protectionistic policies to foster their home economiy, e.g. by defining specific standards or - as some would state - by creating laws for patent protection (ongoing discussion about software patents, copyright violation in China etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.76.174 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

U.S.C. Article I Sec 8: The Congress shall have power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (See Libertarians believe in un-Constitutional or extra-Constitutional doctrine. In this case the free traders are un-Constitutional. The Free Traders wish to replace the US Constitution with something more sinister and evil.)98.165.6.225 (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the opposite of Protectionism (when states prefer imports over local products)?

You might doubt that there is such policy (which most people would call straight forward "stupidity"). But in some segments there is a clear pattern of public biddings demanding products of foreign origin as opposed of local products (sometimes even if local products have been funded by taxes and public money). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.76.174 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Much of this article seems to criticize protectionism and support free-trade. It's fundamentally imbalanced and non-neutral, and from the looks of the discussion page, many editors want it to stay that way. So much for objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phool (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Market reserve

In Brazil , until the government of Fernando Collor in 1990, there were thousands of "market reserves", when no foreign product could be imported for Brazilians.The article forgets this kind of useless protectionism. In fact, protectionism was (and remains) terrible for Brazil and Latin America.The word "protectionism" became equal to hight prices and low quality.Agre22 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)agre22

Indeed, this has been the experience in most developing countries – protectionism leads to high prices and low quality, and an increase in preference for foreign made goods. We should address this experience, as part of the effort to globalize wikipedia. However, we need to find some reliable sources that address this issue. LK (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of term as a perjorative

These days members of the WTO use the word "protectionist" as a perjorative, i.e. something undesirable. This belongs in the article somewhere. GreySun (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Most/many

A line in the article was recently changed from "Many modern economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits..." to "Most modern economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits...", but neither source backs that up. Unless a source can be found, I'm going to change it back. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Most economists" thought NAFTA was great, but that turned into a disaster.98.165.15.98 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"The "Comparative Advantage" argument has lost its legitimacy"

The sentence Free capital mobility totally undercuts Ricardo's comparative advantage argument for free trade in goods needs more sources than Herman Daly. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, even when this claim is made in a arguments section. Needless to say, I highly doubt the claim myself. Joepnl (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether you doubt the argument or not, it is an argument for protectionism and should stand.

If you believe the argument has no merit, you should reference it in the arguments against protectionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaser47401 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm not going to source, but i can explain it a bit. it's really about uneven labour markets. portugal and england had comparable population densities; china and the united states do not. as disproportionately higher population densities will drive down wages, thereby increasing profits, the free mobility of capital will always lead to production preferring countries with higher population densities. this creates a consumer-producer relationship rather than a true trading one. but, it also leads to mass unemployment in the consumer countries, as nearly all production is moved elsewhere. now, look around the world: seem familiar? in the long run, as consumers are increasingly unable to buy from producers, it should lead to decreases in production in the producing countries, as well. then, production should return to the consuming countries, but at wages driven by global rather than local labour markets. the end result is deflation, as wages collapse. ricardo's comparative advantage has been flipped on it's head: both sides are worse off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

References

I read the Greg Mankiw paper, reference #3, and I don't think it's applicable. It's cited to support the statement that most economists agree that protectionism is bad. But the paper endorses Pigovian taxes on gasoline. The relevance to protectionism and it's vices or virtues is tacit at best. I think the reference should be removed, and replaced with a more relevant one.

Can this be reviewed, to corroborate my view, or to give anyone who disagrees a chance to make their case. Otherwise, when I come back to check, I'll locate a reputable source to support the statement and replace the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raolyn13 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Another reference is welcome, but the Mankiw paper cited is relevant because it has this in the introduction: "For example, economists are generally supportive of free trade among nations, while the public is more skeptical. Economists oppose rent control, while much of the public supports the policy." LK (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's an assertion that Mankiw makes, and it's not substantiated in his paper, nor is it the point of his paper. I think it's important to get this one right. It's true that considerably more economists think protectionism is harmful and free trade is better. But there's still a sizable, respected portion who disagree. It's so easy to tacitly suggest protectionism is no longer considered a legitimate econ policy, but I'd like to avoid suggestion that here while illustrating that the majority is more than just a simple majority. Krugman is cited in the next sentence, so there goes my first choice alternative. But we need a good source and then a well-worded statement here to keep this objective. Raolyn13 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Restrain'ism?

The first sentence of this wiki article:

"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states.."

It's called Protectionism not Restrain'ism. The goal of protectionism isn't to restrict trade but to "protect" your State from unfair trade practices and/or build up your state's manufacturing.98.165.15.98 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Another unsourced lie

"Most modern economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits, and that it impedes economic growth."

This is an opinion not a fact. And when that's the case then this sentence needs to be quoted with quotation marks as opinion and not stated as plain fact.98.165.15.98 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Protectionism in the United States

"Free trade and protectionism are regional issues. Free trade in America is the policy of economics developed by American slave holding states and protectionism is a northern, manufacturing issue. Although not as animating an issue as slavery..."

Actually Tariffs was the singular "animating issue" which drove the Civil War, not slavery. The Confederates seceded because of Tariffs, not slavery.98.165.15.98 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede, reverts

Below is the text as I have entered it. Make changes to it here, and we can argue over specific points. -Ste|vertigo 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Protectionism, in its most generic sense, refers to any doctrine or policy which is claimed to protect (ie. enforce security) a group or entity by means of instituting mechanisms which restrict outside influences. In economics, protectionism refers to policies which which "protect" local industry and businesses by restricting or regulating trade between foreign jurisdictions, through methods such as:

1. Subsidies - To protect existing businesses from risk associated with change, such as costs of labour, materials, etc.
2. Tariffs - to increase the price of a foreign competitor's goods. ( Including restrictive quotas, and anti-dumping measures) on par or higher than domestic prices.
3. Quotas - to prevent dumping of cheaper foreign goods that would overwhelm the market.
4. Tax cuts - Alleviation of the burdens of social and business costs.
5. Intervention - The use of state power to bolster an economic entity.
6. Blockades - An extreme example of state power and considered an act of "economic warfare," a blockade is trade intervention as enforced by military power.

Comment: Blockades don't belong in this list.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Protections typically come in the form of legislation —an infamous case being Englands Corn Laws, which preceeded the Irish Potato Famine of the mid-19th century. There are two main variants of economic protectionism, depending on whether the tariff is intended to be collected (traditional protectionism) or not (modern protectionism). The concept has frequently been associated with economic theories such as mercantilism, the belief that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance, and import substitution.

Here is the original text whuch is just fine, offer changes after it and we will discuss it. --Northmeister 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between nations, through methods such as high tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and anti-dumping laws in an attempt to protect domestic industries in a particular nation from foreign take-over or competition. This contrasts with free trade, where no artificial barriers to entry are instituted.

The term is mostly used in the context of economic, where protectionism refers to policies or doctrines which "protect" businesses and living wages by restricting or regulating trade between foreign nations:

1. Subsidies - To protect existing businesses from risk associated with change, such as costs of labour, materials, etc.
2. Tariffss - to increase the price of a foreign competitor's goods. ( Including restrictive quotas, and anti-dumping measures.) on par or higher than domestic prices.
3. Quotas - to prevent dumping of cheaper foreign goods that would overwhelm the market.
4. Tax cuts - Alleviation of the burdens of social and business costs.
5. Intervention - The use of state power to bolster an economic entity.

Protectionism has frequently been associated with economic theories such as mercantilism, the belief that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance, and import substitution. There are two main variants of protectionism, depending on whether the tariff is intended to be collected (traditional protectionism) or not (modern protectionism).

Further protectionism did not cause the Irish Famine, that is intellectual dishonesty and I will not accept that in the article. It was the British policy towards the Irish which caused them to rely on a single crop - Smith wanted us (USA) to do the same with Agriculture as he wrote in Wealth of Nations that we would never become an industrial power - The lack of Irish control over their own affairs caused the famine - not protectionism or the Corn Laws. Feel free to offer any edits to the above paragraphs as originally there before your edits which I do not think improve the article. --Northmeister 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SV

I did not say, such "caused" the Famine, and it should be considered "intellectual dishonesty" for you to say I did. The Famine came about due to a number of converging factors - one of which was the 'hands off; laissez-faire economic policy, which, in reality meant 'hands off' with regard to helping the Irish, and Protectionism (ie. the Corn Laws, continued export to England of food produced in Ireland, etc.) I think we agree on the basics, and I will concede that mentioning the Corn Laws might be out of place, as it lacks critical context of (again trendy and simplistic) lassez-faire. You said "here is the original[sic] text whuch is just fine, offer changes after it and we will discuss it." Thats what that above version was, (here is the "original" version by the way) but anyway, here are a couple proposed changes below :

Protectionism, in its most generic sense, refers to any doctrine or policy which is claimed to protect (ie. enforce security) a group or entity by means of instituting mechanisms which restrict outside influences. In economics, protectionism refers to policies which which "protect" local industry and businesses by restricting or regulating trade between foreign jurisdictions, through methods such as:

Protectionism is in contrast to the concept of (idealised) free trade, where no artificial barriers to entry are instituted to prevent competition. The term "nanny state" refers to the a state which has deeply institutionalized protectionism for its industry, businesses, and elite social classs.

-Ste|vertigo 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

NM res

Thank you for the response. I was out vacationing, so forgive me my long awaited reply. I don't mind your wording above. If your going to include nanny state, then we need a legitimate source that compares the two. Here is my suggestion:

Protectionism, in its most generic sense, refers to any doctrine or policy which is claimed to protect (ie. enforce security) a group or entity by means of instituting mechanisms which restrict outside influences.

In economics, protectionism is the policy of restraining trade between nations, through methods such as:

1. Subsidies - To protect existing businesses from risk associated with change, such as costs of labour, materials, etc.;
2. Tariffss - to increase the price of a foreign competitor's goods. ( Including restrictive quotas, and anti-dumping measures.) on par or higher than domestic prices.;
3. Quotas - to prevent dumping of cheaper foreign goods that would overwhelm the market.;
4. Tax cuts - Alleviation of the burdens of social and business costs.;
5. Intervention - The use of state power to bolster an economic entity.;

in an attempt to protect domestic industries in a particular nation from foreign take-over or competition which would frive domestic industry out of business.

Protectionism has frequently been associated with economic theories such as mercantilism, the belief that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance, and import substitution. Protectionism has also been contrasted to the concept of (idealised) free trade, where no artificial barriers to entry are instituted to prevent competition.

There are two main variants of protectionism, depending on whether the tariff is intended to be collected (traditional protectionism) or not (modern protectionism).

What do you think? I feel the above includes all that is needed for an opening to this article without taking out necessary information and including your information. Again, Nanny state stuff needs better sourcing. --Northmeister 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Will read shortly. Tired. -Ste|vertigo

Glen 10/19/06: I changed the text from "Tariffs" to "Protective Tariffs". There *is* a difference between a revenue tariff (say 10-15%) and a protective or prohibitive tariff (1500%), as the Wikipedia tariff article itself shows, and the point of the revenue tariff is to be collected, and hence by definition *not* to impel the person to buy the domestic product. The USA still maintains revenue tariffs of 2-5% for countries it does not have free trade agreements with--that's not protectionism, that's just regular, unpleasant taxation to help fill government coffers.