Title: The Global Financial Crisis and Protectionism
Question: During 2008~2009 many developed nations gave subsidies to their automobile producers. How might this have distorted international trade? Was this a reasonable thing to do given the circumstances?
Introduction
There was an empirical research study on the effect of protectionism on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States (US). According to National Bureau Of Economic Research, “a generalized 10 percent hike against emerging Asia improves the US current account balance as a share of GDP by a mere 0.1 percentage point. The effect disappears after about two years, and in the absence of further adjustment in net saving, it may even revert sign.” So it implies that the protectionism has many negative aspects on one’s economy contrary to the nation’s belief. I could find reasons why protectionism affects international trade in negative ways from several research papers. In this paper, I tried to verify those reasons by using certain economical models.
1. Protection measures benefit domestic producers and affiliated other parties, but society pays the price.
Assumption 1) Domestic and foreign automobile products are a perfect substitution. 2) Government offers the domestic producers subsidies by “s” per every produce.
In order to protect less competitive domestic automobile producers, the government offers subsidies to them. It makes the domestic automobile producers feel that cost is reduced and
For Example: Suppose a company cuts their workweek from 40 hours to 30 while keeping the wage the same. This will open up jobs, possibly making the total man hours the similar to before. There was no benefit for the company to do that at all. All that happened was that the employed had given up their pay for the unemployed. On the other hand, if the company reduced the work week and increased the wage, the firm would have to raise prices and cut profits. The biggest misconception of protectionism is the fact that merchants are looking at the short term benefits rather than the long term impact. When placing tariffs on common goods productivity and wages are reduced. In a protected industry it is contrast for wage and efficiency, but fall for the overall
In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith talks about international trade and subsequent government policies which became increasingly significant throughout modern history. Protectionism is the term for economic policies of restraining trade between countries when they want to protect their domestic industries from foreign competition. Trades nowadays have different forms and methods and involve more businessmen as well as consumers, which is why trade diplomats are looking to regional agreements. The US experienced two major economic declines during the 20th century, both of which had much to do with international trade. Smith mentioned tariffs in the 18th century, but the role and forms of protectionism have changed across time, so we should know whether the development of economy should actually be correlated with or decided by the political sector of the society and when protectionism will benefit or hurt economy.
subsidies; which are grants of money that are given to the Canadian agricultural markets and
Protectionism by way of the price mechanisms such as tariffs, subsides, quotas, export licences and import duties (Rugman, 2009) are just some of the measures which can seriously impact on a foreign company. For example the American steel industry was afforded protection under the Bush administration when large tariffs were imposed on foreign steel imports in order to safeguard the jobs of the national steel workers (Mankiw and Taylor, 2008).
Farm subsidies have become an somewhat debated topic in recent year, with increasing numbers of critics believing that these are detrimental not only to the economy, but also by implication to the health of Americans. Subsidies are offered by the USDA to farmers of commodity crops such as corn, wheat, rice, and livestock such as cattle. This makes these types of food cheaper than other, potentially healthier choices such as organic products. Farm subsidies were initially implemented after the Great Depression to help farmers cope with the economic effects after the Depression years. In other words, they were to stimulate the economy after the difficult years of the downturn. Although initially intended as a temporary measure, the subsidies remained part of the government assistance program for farmers even today. As a proponent of this system, my viewpoint is that farm subsidies ultimately benefits the United States in terms of protecting domestic product against foreign competition, national security, and American food aid to poorer countries.
Many critics might argue that the United States government should not regulate imports more heavily because it is bad for the United States economy. According to (insert source), a year ago the United States gross domestic product was almost $15.7 trillion, as per the Bureau of Economic Analysis. This was the consequence of the expansion of around $2.18 trillion in fares and the subtraction of $2.75 trillion in imports. As an aftereffect of this, numerous make the
Protectionism will destroy our PPP and the existing economies of scale, given the current government regulation. America needs innovation and entrepeneurship, and for the government to pull it's dick out of the economy. The government and corporations ensured America will likely never be a manufacturing based economy
This is because many developed countries may use protectionist measures to prevent developing countries from having free access to certain markets (which may include the markets for the developing countries’ primary product) thus making it more difficult for poorer countries to grow and develop.
One of the greatest international economic debates of all time has been the issue of free trade versus protectionism. Proponents of free trade believe in opening the global market, with as few restrictions on trade as possible. Proponents of protectionism believe in concentrating on the welfare of the domestic economy by limiting the open-market policy of the United States. However, what effects does this policy have for the international market and the other respective countries in this market? The question is not as complex as it may seem. Both sides have strong opinions representing their respective viewpoints, and even the population of the United States is divided when it comes to taking a stand in
By the end of 2008, the European Union began experiencing rippling effects of the United States financial crisis. Several member countries, most notably on the southern end of the continent, faced high levels of debt and unemployment. Portugal, Iceland, Ireland, Greece, and Spain, derogatively referred to as “PIIGS,” required extensive economic support from the EU in order to repay government debts and bail-out private banks. Disbursal of aid in 2010 proved successful in promoting economic recovery in some countries; however, the vast majority observed only slight economic improvement which led to doubts regarding the effectiveness of the harsh austerity measures implemented. Ireland has most clearly benefited from the financial support of the European Union as the country’s unemployment rate has dropped below ten percent and is expected to witness 4.5% GDP growth in 2016. Portugal, on the other hand, shows little fiscal improvement as evident in an unemployment rate of 13% and an expected GDP growth of only 1.6% in 2016. Although both countries faced tough financial crises in 2010, Ireland has notably outperformed Portugal in resolving the situation. The weak economy in Portugal, as well as continued fiscal hardship in the remaining “PIGS” countries, threaten the preservation of the European Union as financial inequality between the members persists.
Tariffs overall are pro-producer and anti-consumer which is why the United States are making these destructive proposals, they are all to provide security and self-help. Consequently, through realism the zero-sum game would likely aid the United States and the United states only with their economic gains.
With billions of dollars invested and hundreds of thousands of Americans employed (Department of Commerce, n.d.), the automobile industry has a vast influence in the United States. Since the time Henry Ford developed the assembly line production (Statista, n.d.) the industry has grown into a global market with no signs of slowing down. Top car companies are constantly searching for new innovations to set them apart from their competitors. Among those companies is Volkswagen (VW). A company which strides in emissions and fuel efficiency turned, not only to be false, but caused a severe amount of damage (Ewing, 2016).
Free trade has long be seen by economists as being essential in promoting effective use of natural resources, employment, reduction of poverty and diversity of products for consumers. But the concept of free trade has had many barriers to over come. Including government practices by developed countries, under public and corporate pressures, to protect domestic firms from cheap foreign products. But as history has shown us time and time again is that protectionist measures imposed by governments has almost always had negative effects on the local and world economies. These protectionist measures also hurt developing countries trying to inter into the international trade markets.
The international trade of goods across the world accounts for approximately 60% of the world Gross Domestic Product (The World Bank, 2014). A great proportion of goods transactions occur every second. The primary question is whether international trade benefits a country as an entirety, and, if so, why would a country implement protective trade policies to restrict particular exports? To address this question, this essay aims to explore the impact of trade on various economic stakeholders, including consumers, producers, labour and government and, furthermore, will compare models and theories with reality to ascertain the true winner/ loser in the international trade market.
To understand the comparison of protectionist rationales used in high-income countries with those used in low-income countries’ economies