An (Indomitable) Argument for Protectionism

Leave a comment

Seagate Wuxi China Factory Tour

Protectionism helps us at home and our friends abroad

The expired Multi-Fiber Arrangement left thirty million people across the world unemployed.  These workers were unfortunate victims of globalized free trade.  Free trade leads us to believe that goods should always be produced by the firms competing under pure capitalist conditions.  This idea is not wrong; it is only the dangers of free trade should be mitigated in emerging markets around the globe to give them the opportunity to succeed.  Protectionism, the antagonist of free trade, is the solution to best prepare infant industries and emerging economies anywhere in the world; this policy employees more denizens, produces stronger industries, and cultivates stronger markets than free trade ever could.

Inefficiency creates more jobs.  If the entire world can exploit a market then only those countries with the most efficient industries will be able to sell.  Protectionism erects a wall of tariffs that prevents foreign goods from ever contaminating domestic markets by driving prices up to an inclusive level for domestic products.  Under protectionism, small industries gain a foothold, bloom, and employ more denizens in every country across the world.  There are minor concessions; on a global level less of goods are produced and the cost is driven up slightly as well.  These negligible effects diffused throughout the consumer markets means the world to the now employed workers who can support their families.  Protectionism is more humane than free trade.

Stronger industries are built under the shield of protectionism.  Behind a wall of tariffs the United States built mighty firms of  industry that dominated the world for the second half of the twentieth century.  Preceding the Americans, the British had done the same when the pioneered the Industrial Revolution and built an empire upon which the sun never set.  Since the 1970’s China used numerous protectionist policies, notably keeping its currency artificially low.  It is predicted to have the world’s largest GDP by 2020.  Examples of booming economies that got their start in free trade are scare.  Columbus and Admiral Perry opened up trade to the Americas and East Asia respectively.  In both countries widespread exploitation of natives and complete sterilization of domestic industries ensued following the introduction of cheap free trade imports.  Free trade is a tool of the strong to stay in power and collect wealth; for weaker nations and industries free trade is a poison which cripples.

Stronger markets evolve under protectionism.  Protectionist policies protect infant industries and prevent exploitation of weak economies.  In an international market of free trade monopolies are certain to emerge.  Monopolies are established when there is not industrial competition.  This problem hurts everyone.  Consumers suffer from an inferior product; without the Darwinian survival of the fittest threat the producers have no incentive to innovate.  Marginal producers are harmed.  Any attempts to breach the market are squelched under the monopoly.  The monopoly hurts itself through stagnation.  Protectionism is the best means in a globalized economy to give marginal producers and infant industries the time to create a profitable industries despite the monopolies.  Consumers and marginal producers benefit from better products and pay checks while potential monopolies are broken out of self-defeating cycles of stagnation.  Protectionism helps everyone.

Protectionist protects countries.  It harbors citizens and gives them jobs.  It cultivates infant industries under a cocoon of tariffs.  Better products and firms are brought to market thanks to protectionism.  It seems almost silly to even think about introducing globalized free trade to emerging economies; it corrupts infant industries and kills jobs.  If it were not for multinational corporations, who preach fallacious free trade to all for a better profit margin, protectionism would indisputably hold in its rightful place as protector of firms, consumes, and employees.


Australia Opposing Freedom; Pro-Monarchy



Clearly you are not from Australia, whose populace are determined to remain in the throes of monarchy.

Australia has traditionally been a province of the Britain.  Ever since the founding of the Australian territory it has been this way and Britain has treated them like shit.  When the cities became overpopulated spare Irishmen were sent, unwillingly, over to Australia  alongside killers and rapists.  These weren’t nice little cruises, with margaritas and belly dances.  It was fairly common for passengers to die in the crossing, which took many months in leaking ships.  Upon arrival, the poor immigrants realized they had to scratch out a living in a country that is more than half desert.

Where's Oz?

If only I had a margarita. Not a belly dancer though, there always far to fat. Whales.

It was like begin sent to a different planet.

This trend continued basically till the conclusion of World War Two.  This is when the Australians began to start self-governing.  Somewhere off in Britain the Queen Elizabeth the Second (yes, she is that old) smiled that her provinces were flourishing and went back to eating tea and crumpets.  I speculate she forgot about the seventh continent, because they have self governed unmolested since that point.

These days are some of the last of Queen Elizabeth the Second.  The Australian politicians are getting frightened; while she rocked her successor doesn’t.  That man is Prince Charles, her eldest son.  Turns out he is an idiot.

His attitude on journalists, “I hate…these bloody people.”

His opinion of Chinese politicians (who represent arguably the most powerful country on Earth) -“… appalling old waxworks.”

Prince Charles is also a magician, he’s got a rabbit and everything.

Prince Charles and Rabbit

So basically, giving this guy the power to command Australia, and Canada as well for that matter, is a worse idea than giving an arsonist a flamethrower and set him loose on New York City during a Paper and Dry Leaves Festival.  At least you could probably kill that arsonist with a sniper or something, though dropping napalm on him would be a touch more ironic.  Australia has over 80,000 troops in the Australian Defense Force, each and every one of them trained amongst the Kangaroo Kung Fu masters and Karate Koalas.

And you thought they kept these guys around because they were fuzzy. Cuddle him and die.

So chancing this megalomaniac Prince Charles with that sort of power is a big no-no.  There is talk of by passing him. Prince William, next in line after Prince Charles, is actually competent and probably wouldn’t start World War Three for fun.  But Australia cannot rely on that; which is why there has been a push for transferring Australia over to a republic.

However, there is resistance.  And a lot of it.

Turns out the common folk of Australia would rather run the risks above and remain a part of the British Empire.  They are a proud, and very silly, people, they have grown to their attached to their roots in England.  I wonder how many remember their ancestors were kicked out of British Isles and their country was always been mistreated by Britain.  Whenever the English needed conscripts they called on Australia, whether they wanted to fight or not.  Tens of thousands of Australians died in hills of Turkey during World War One.  There are Australian graves across Europe from World War Two.  I guess the Australians have a short memory.

I wonder how often they lose their keys.

This majority group, yes recent statics point that the majority of the country want to keep the status quo, are determined to stay a monarchy.  Almost all of the Australian Parliament, except the Prince Charles alleged conspirators, want a republic.

Currently these two are at a standstill, but this may change any day.  Check back soon for updates.

Australia’s Changing Government: From Monarchy to Republic

Leave a comment

I was reading the newspaper this morning- *everyone cracks up laughing* Well.  I was reading on the internet.  Apparently the sun still never sets on the British Empire, sunny Australia still is ruled by the Queen.  Now their Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, wants to switch it up and make her government a straight up republic.  This move might bring civil war to Australia.

This is startling, in this modern era, for a country on the forefront of technology to have a backwards government, a constitutional monarchy.  This type of government essentially has a king, who is restrained by a handful of laws but can still basically do whatever he wants.

Are those littles Benjamin Franklin's? Weird Fetish.

History has discovered that constitutional monarchy not a good form of government.  It materialized originally in England, when victorious rebel nobles forced King James to sign the Magna Carta.  This historic document put the king under restraints, putting him under the law.

Here many historians place the just seeds of democracy to be sown.

They fail to mention that King James regularly broke the laws specifically stated in the Magna Carta.

Yeah…. Despite the fact there are officially laws to hold in check the monarch, usually they reign unchecked.  This trend continued across the world; the Czars and the Duma, weak and worthless democrats, numerous French governments, and Germany’s Kaiser.

Remember? The guy who started World War One.

I am the best monarch ever; my mustache defies gravity.

Constitutional monarchy’s do not work, democracy and republics work much better.

This brings this article back to Australia, home of the kangaroo.  They have a pretty solid republic system to run their nation and all thirty people in it.  However, it appears they simply forgot that the queen is still at the top.

That’s right, Queen Elizabeth the Second rules Australia.


I guess they just forgot to ask her how they should run their country.  Truthfully, she allows them to rule independently with zero oversight.  This freedom has recently led to talks for the Australian government to switch to a republic system, to be completely independent.

The motivation behind this move is clear, the Australians are just looking after themselves.  Only the citizens of a country will look after it, a foreign ruler in a foreign land is a rouge element that might not.  To let this foreigner rule is an outrage and fairly irresponislbe.

However, this move will bring enormous controversy.  Like all nations, those Australians are proud of their heritage.  Being apart of the British Empire. Playing a key role in historic battles. Abducting Aboriginal children from their homes to transport them to camps to be reeducated, in order to breed out the Aboriginal genes.

The Australians apologized for that last one, which lasted till the 1970’s, they now have a National Sorry Day. (

Way to go guys.

Anyway, people are proud of their identity and the British crown is part of Australian culture.  It is the same as Russians are proud of their military prowess, Japan with their cutting edge technology, and America with it’s drugs.  Changing any aspect of the identity is fought tooth and nail.

Made in America

This will lead to the this pretty trivial concern erupting into a massive tempest of political destruction. Should this movement gain momentum it will break politicians and make new ones.

The recommended position is to support the archaic constitutional monarchy, this stance is patriotic and conservative.  It has been working for the last hundred years, why not the next hundred?  Those attempting to revise the system are sailing in unmapped water, who knows when they’ll hit an unmarked danger and sink to the bottom.

This little publicity stunt of Australia’s will make headlines around the world.

Here is Australia making headlines for the future Republic, and their citizens resisting their every step:

%d bloggers like this: