Navigating these blogs in the universe, I am someone who strongly supports protectionism. One who has communed with the theories of free trade, the entry says noooooooo, not protectionism. No more.
But then, taking a cut in a bar I hear the following conversation:
Why the tourism industry is still primarily English? - Ask a neighbor to the speaker bar. The answer soon: why in China can not make the beaches and the sun here ...
Beyond the hype (have to see how many tourism businesses are authentic English), one thinks, because if it is true . Lately almost all manufactured goods that I have to identify telltale "Made in China." But also is not just that Chinese families are crowding out bars and restaurants in Barcelona, \u200b\u200bnot to mount Chinese restaurants, which and there are quite a lot, but to continue producing pans, canes, tapas and sangria. In some cases with not too bad result.
Many Western companies have gone to manufacturing to China, for that labor costs, eliminating jobs in the West and on the pretext that they can not compete with the low prices of products coming from that country.
Are we at the dawn of a new society? It should be clear that these Chinese are willing to eat a single dish for food and work days of 14 hours a day, including holidays. And unions do not seem to say much about this competition in the labor field, they are busy with other foci of attention.
And I must say that I feel bad philosophy, as seen from their point of view, but of course, if you maintain a growth of 8 or 10% results leave many people unemployed in the West might have be asked and that is where I question arises: is it legitimate for a country or group of countries to implement protectionist standards, preventing or taxing imports of products that can affect local economies? To adopt these measures is detrimental to the inhabitants of the exporting countries?
find some definitions of protectionism on the Internet, such as the following:
"protectionist economic doctrine holds that international trade is a zero-sum game: no nation can become rich if not at the expense that other is impoverished.
economic doctrine which requires the protection to agriculture and industry a country by taxing imports of foreign products and promoting other means to citizens. "
Among the measures that befall us, the "cuts" for people you name, I have not seen much to promote the competitiveness and productivity, or aimed at promoting industrial development to maintain and create jobs. Rather I have seen "punitive" measures in the fiscal or labor, which seem designed to squeeze the middle class citizens or low (income tax for the rich seems purely anecdotal), to compensate for errors or speculation a few - smart-ass economists and politicians - which, moreover, gives me the impression that follow it.
Therefore I wonder, before plunging the economy interior and increasing unemployment, would not prevent an option under the saturation of our internal markets from low-cost (and dubious quality) and to promote that are manufactured here?. I refer not only to Spain but to the EU, something that we're in it.
Or are there too the government are slaves of multinational companies and entrepreneurs, who are already doing well this situation? Reflect that some things are bread today, hunger for tomorrow and the unemployed increasingly consumes less ...
This would to a lot and does not aim my blog The burden, then let the discussion.
Incidentally, I am delighted that the court of auditors goal nose in the alleged waivers of political parties. Funding that would be illegal right?
And finally, I do not like the political agenda of the PP, but Zapatero slowly and crying aside, is complying with everything the party suggests. Since entering what will the abolition of ministries. Which each draw their own conclusions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment