TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Very well said, indeed. Historically, both Europe and the US are not alien to protectionism. In fact, as opposed to benign (and often failed) protectionisms of the underdeveloped world, European and US protectionisms manifested themselves in a very hostile form, in colonialism and imperialism.
For me, both forms of subjugation were tools for technical protectionism.
For example, in the 18th century, when textile manufacturing was developing in the UK, it demanded protection by the government against competition from India. The state put severe restrictions on textile imports from India, and eventually, silk and calicoes from India, China and Persia were entirely banned by law.
Aside from protectionism, by exporting cheap domestic manufacturers on massive scale (dumping), the UK drove the entire Indian textile industry into bankruptcy.
Interesting thing is that British manufacturers were protected from their own compatriots in the East India Company. Hence, the importance of national elites and domestic business. There was hardly any protestant ethics, any natural superiority.
The same goes for other Western countries. UK was the largest manufacturing nation until the end of the 1800s; from the second half the 19th century, countries such as Germany, France and US, not wanting to be economic colonies to Britain, all started to stimulate national industrial development through strong government protection.
China's experience was not different from the Indian experience; and perhaps a much bitter one. There is every reason to call the Opium Wars as the Textile Wars. It is obvious that, just as it was the case in the 19th century, it is still the case today that the enhanced role of the state in economy is a must for developing nations on account of external factors such as heavy competition, technological advances, intellectual property rights etc.
Just as it was impossible for the US to develop on equal basis with UK, hence it went protectionist (same with US energy companies in the 1930s, which were outcompeted by the British and French which had deeper penetration in the Middle Eastern oil), it is still impossible for China to maintain its nascent industries without a type of mercantilist selective protection.
Historically (and if applicable, morally) developed countries in the West need to absorb the developing countries' initial protectionism. It is indeed historical anomaly that an essentially protectionist country like the US (and EU in the case of calling China not market economy) would resort to further protectionism while calling for developing countries like China to stop state-regulated economic management.
I do hope China's leadership won't be blinded by arbitrary and untimely concepts such as trade liberalism and laissez faire.
Last edited:
