Why be protectionist when you can be imperialist?

I mean

protectionism is objectively worse off for the market, especially between countries with similar labor/pollution laws

It should only be used to restrict the flow of goods created with slave/sweatshop labor

Sweatshop labor is good for those in sweatshops. They average higher wages than others in the same country. It helps raise families and nations out of poverty. Those working in sweatshops want to work there, so protectionism against sweatshop labor is punishing them for their own choices and pursuing their own best interest.

Ideally yes, because it does make the country wealthier and respects personal freedom to trade across borderlines just like private actors between states can, however, when you have third world nations that either restrict the rights of the people or are using tactics such as currency manipulation then tariffs can be used as a bargaining tool to make the country fall in line with economic policy that will make both that country and your country better off in the long run

To be clear, "it" in the beginning is free trade, and i was just going over some exceptions to the rule of free trade

The free market is a false idea. No one does this in practice. Look at the data from wto of ongoing protective measures and you will see every country always has them. China especially does not have a free market. To produce in china, you must accept a partnership with a local businessman, usually a chinese conglomerate before even opening. Then they steal all your trade secrets and open a competing factory across the street and undercut you using the backing of the chinese government subsidizing any losses. Its crazy to suggest china has a free market!!!!

@Jay1532 the free market has existed for short periods of time in localized areas. However, it is what we should be striving for as it is demonstrably the best system. The closer we get to it, the better

Free market is always best for a less developed country. It adds almost trivial growth to a developed nation

The global free market isnt the be and end all, the ethics of the state and how much they interfere in the free market domestically should be considered. If china use child labour, or near slave like conditions, why should that product get a free ride into the country with higher moral standards.

@Jay1532 less developed countries such as? any example?

If a government use tax revenue to subsidise an industry, so its goods are dirt cheap, domestic producers need their livelihoods protecting. Id let goods in penalty free, if they were truly from another free market.

@grilomoto its just economics. A less developed country that just now engages in free trade will have huge growth numbers. Just look at the historical data for any of the "asian tigers". They had that sort of growth not because of anything remarkable about their economies or economics, but it was mostly due to their being less developed. In economics you can think of some unknown variable which represents an economies "natural" gdp path. If a country is undeveloped and just opens up, it will shoot towards that natural gdp path in a hurry and so you will see growth years of 25% and more until it gets there and settles into the 1%-3% that developed countries have, often decades later

or even face recession, like what happened to japan

i can try to look up some of the formulas and theories but i just sold a lot of my old textbooks to ebay lol

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/InternationalTrade.html

heres a good introduction to the economics of international trade

without too many formulas and jargon

the united states is an interesting case study though, because you can look at each city and each state from a comparative advantage standpoint. The biggest thing hamstringing this effect is federalism since it limits states with Procrustean bureaucracy

@Jay1532 it may initially help a less developed nation catch up to more advanced nations, but it's effect on more developed nations is not trivial. The free market incentivizes innovation, which is the greatest driver in increase of real wealth and higher living standards, and more developed nations have a better ability and more resources to innovate. Wealthy, developed nations increase the wealth of all nations just by creating better and cheaper products and developing more efficient means of production. This is all done best through the free market.

@campodin also is an expedient way to create megalomaniac superstates like china is becoming

@Jay1532 China is a house of cards

Their economy is getting ever more precarious and unstable

Much of their growth is artificial and manufactured

It is going to catch up to them soon enough

yeah, but they have successful infiltration operations and stole so much american intellectual property that now they can successfully challenge the pax americana weve all (the world) enjoyed for so long

especially american military IP

@campodin Government Contracts (to private companies) drive the most innovation

Since it's instant motivation, unlike a regular market where it takes a multitude of time to innovate

Lol, no China is not challenging the pax Americana. Trump has showed just how weak they really are

China can't hold off against the U.S in a trade war

thats naive

China is already outsourcing itself @Jay1532

they are not weak

They are investing into new companies in Africa

only if xi loses power will they have been shown to be weak

they are planning on nuking the petro-dollar behind the scenes

Xi is basically neo-mao, have fun trying to convince it's popular to rebel

and if turkey and others are any indication, they are receiving an audience thats listening

China will never be a sole superpower, they will follow the path of the soviet union