We’ve been known to address the issue of ‘labeling’ over the years through this forum. Usually the topic du jour is food. Not this week – the discussion point is ‘labeling’ but the topic specific was presented to us via a ‘public challenge’ issued to the American public by Senator Sherrod Brown (Dem, OH) in an April 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Don’t Call Me a Protectionist”.
So…who should or can be labeled a ‘protectionist’? First, we should all agree on what or who a protectionist is. Websters defines protectionist as: “an advocate of government economic protection for domestic producers through restrictions on foreign competitors.” Webster’s goes on to define a protective tariff as: “a tariff (tax) intended primarily to protect domestic producers rather than to yield revenue.”
Keeping Webster’s as the defining source, trade is: the business of buying and selling or bartering commodities, to give in exchange for another commodity”.
Using those definitions and Senator Brown’s assertion that those who ‘want more trade but with a very different set of rules’ are not protectionists – do you agree?
We respect Senator Brown for raising the issue and calling for a ‘real debate on trade’. But let’s get this straight, Senator Brown is defined as a protectionist not only because of what he says but by what he does ie…his Senate voting history. There doesn’t appear to be a trade agreement that he has or will support. Does protecting American citizens from making a profit for producing products that other people – in this country and around the world – want make him a protectionist? What do you think?
hey...i am not mean to be an annoy ppl...but this is my job..i have to do this things... www .lotro100gold.com is online shop for game gold....if u are free...can u plz come and have a look ? just have a look plz..u wont lose anything...thanks
for ur time...and srry to bother u .... here is our other website : www .viccol. com
Unregulated, lopsided trade has ruined our economy, bolstered multi-nationals, and given more power to governments with poor records on human rights and environmental protection. But maybe that doesn't matter to some traders. I call them traitors. What is wrong with "Fair" trade?
here is our website...more safe and faster..if u have time..can u come and have a look ? www. viccol.com thanks for ur time..ans srry to bother u ..have a good time www.lotro100gold.com
Of course, we want trade to be protected against fraud, traffic in nuclear devices, etc. This sort of protectionism is a *requirement*, because it *protects free trade*.
So, a more precise way to define trade protectionism is "any restriction on trade that does not act to preserve its freedom."
There will be those who argue against this definition.
Primarily, they will be the "Fair Trade, Not Free Trade" people. However, they've rejected free trade outright, and so can be conveniently dismissed.
Other opponents of the definition will be more clever, and suggest that the definition could embrace sales of handguns, or mind-bending narcotics.
If one remains pragmatic on these issues, and keeps trade and freedom in mind, I'm certain that a rational result will emerge every time.
Blog 
