Talk:Protectionism/Archives/2020

Call to remove

This is not consistent with the economic consensus:

"However, although trade liberalization can sometimes result in large and unequally distributed losses and gains, and can, in the short run, cause significant economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors,[11] free trade has advantages of lowering costs of goods and services for both producers and consumers.[12]"

This is not now economists think about free trade. This makes it sound as if the only advantage to free trade is the reduction in costs, while the downside is "significant" job loss. Like anything else, there is some displacement that occurs from open trade, but the idea that it is "significant" is a misconception that stems from the fact that this issue is perpetually politicized.

Here is some recent research that discusses this phenomenon:

https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/pb16-5.pdf

Economic dislocation occurs, but it isn't significant. Also, the gains from trade are widely dispersed at all levels of society.

I suggest this be removed from the lead. If there are no objections I'll do it myself.Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Protectionism in the US

I fixed the US section here: [[1]] so it starts with policies and theories at the founding of the country, Hamilton, first Sec of Treasury, lays out the history through WWII period, then goes into some of the debate about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of high tariffs. This was deleted without justification. --NYCJosh (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You added some tripe about how scholarship on the topic is "neoliberal", and you tried to make it appear as if Douglas Irwin's research is fringe or that he's failing to observe objective facts. If you want your bastardized version in this article, you need to seek consensus. Your restoration of the content is a clear-cut violation of WP:BRD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Snooganssnoogans here. Volunteer Marek 21:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the chronology: we should start with the (1) founding father, Hamilton, and his cornerstone (at the time) Report, and (2) then provide the factual history of tariffs for most of US history. We could then provide some (3) debate about the wisdom of this or that aspect of the policy. That's what I was trying to do. It makes no sense to launch into (3) without first laying out (1) and (2). That's like starting an article on the automobile with an opinion on why automobiles are overrated.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No objection based on WP rules has been made to support the revert of my orderly layout of the chronology.

The only objection has been to my use of the term neoliberal to describe Irwin's views. Neoliberal is not intended as a critique, it is a standard term that describes a mainstream view in economics. In any event, I don't want to get into a protracted discussion of that and we can omit that word if that is the only bone of contention.````

Snooganssnoogans --you fail to respond here on the talk page, and then you revert my contribution by asserting that the US section should start with a "peer reviewed" article. The section currently starts with a book review in The Economist! What peer reviewed article do you have in mind? Your edits and unresponsiveness are unhelpful.--NYCJosh (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a summary of Douglas Irwin's peer-reviewed book. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a misleading edit summary (because the cite is to The Economist, not to a peer reviewed scholarly journal). More important, it provides zero support based on WP rules for undoing my edit, which begins with the gold standard in WP sources: a work by a major economist published by a leading academic press (University of Chicago). For months now, you have failed to state a WP-rules backed reason for undoing my edit.67.243.26.7 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)