I recently overheard an attention-grabbing dialogue between a bank teller and her customer. The bank teller informed him that there was a fee for his requested service. “There better not be,” he retorted. “There is an $8 fee,” she reaffirmed. Irate, he said, "Well hopefully that will change when Trump is president. This is ridiculous!" She laughed, politely, that is.
 |
| flickr.com |
While unoriginal, this man’s statement reflects his possible patronage to recently popular group led by President Trump: the protectionists or adversaries of free trade. Just as the man at the bank welcomed government control of his microscopic exchange, protectionists believe that the government should control macroscopic exchanges or U.S. trade. That is, they ascent to tariffs on imports and sometimes subsidies on exports in order to “protect” domestic corporations and employees.
 |
| wikimedia.org |
A critic of President Trump on protectionism is President Obama, whose free trade proclivity I admire. I do not admire all of his policies, however, and some of them I have not researched enough to justifiably choose a stance. I have examined too little about his Middle East Policies, for instance, to determine their value. But I have examined the two presidents’ economic policies, especially those that appeal to the American people in economic discomfort or despair.
A major symbol of racial progress, President Obama handily appealed to both affluent and impoverished African Americans, and to Americans who think that progress is especially important.
Still, many Americans’ view of President Obama is one neither of socioeconomic ascension nor economic expertise, but rather, unconditional welfare (Example: ObamaPhones) or affirmative action. To the extent that discriminatory policies cause economic adversity, welfare for specific groups is warranted (Possible Examples: voting laws that seem to target and hurt black voting, or school discipline, which seems to target black students). However, in facets of the sociopolitical system that are not inequitable by nature, nor have been for many years, political leaders should not inhibit the prosperous course of the free market.
 |
| flickr.com |
A government program whose sole purpose is to meet the needs and wants of market strugglers inhibits the market from the full deployment of its resources and productive exchanges. (When I worked at the Boys and Girls Club, the adorable children would be forced to take some of the free lunch food, only to immediately throw some of it in the garbage.)
Some of President Trump’s supporters attribute their unemployment or lowered wages to foreign competition, so they promote tariffs, a regulatory measure that curbs trade and engenders market inefficiencies. That is, tariffs would reduce imports, compelling the United States to specialize in industries for which it does not enjoy a comparative advantage. The upshot is a society that is less prosperous and less free.
 |
| by KAZ Vorpal |
Going forward, we can undermine the protectionist argument – and thus dissuade some Americans from supporting it electorally – by alleviating the economic discomfort of the less fortunate. We can feed and cheer the poor. We can connect them with unemployment services. I myself once received employment assistance from two such organizations: ldsjobs.org and expresspros.com.Their assistance and that of philanthropic organizations nationwide may even assuage the job frustrations of Americans whose industry competes with foreign markets -- that is, markets that are unhindered by American tariffs. Above all, we can lead by example. We can exemplify in our lives the qualities capable of transforming their lives: diligence, virtue, and faith.
Private intervention is nearly always favorable: its effects are often long-lasting, its revenue base voluntary, and its resources plentiful. Government intervention should be used with restraint: its effects are often short-lived, its revenue base involuntary, and its resources limited. America squanders its potential when its people turn to the government too quickly to solve their problems too forcefully.
Sometimes, I think two oppposing groups really want the same end results but disagree with the route to get there. Those for and those against tariffs could be an example of this, as they are both ultimately wanting a prosperity for the nation and individuals but support the opposite methods for getting there. This post has clear examples explaining the viewpoint against tariffs. I wonder how many times an open and clear dialogue (including people willing to listen to each other) could end up uniting people with seemingly opposing viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete