Why protectionism is a lot like racism

You continue to ignore the question of whats the difference between me waving the flag and you waving the flag. You seem to think ignoring the question is the same as answering it.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

lol
OK, first you stupidly try to equate the displaying of a flag with me saying we ought to be afraid of people "who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag." Either you're just playing dumb (another idiom) or you really do not understand the usage of idioms. Now you're asking me to restate my arguments after you just wrote, "If you answer it I'll be happy to comment on your arguments...there is plenty of funny stuff there too. "

What's funny, entertaining and slightly impressive, is your ability to repeatedly play dumb. Or were you just being funny when you wrote that you'd reply to my arguments?

0 Replies

You continue to ignore the question of whats the difference between me waving the flag and you waving the flag. You seem to think ignoring the question is the same as answering it.
-rabel22

No, I did answer it. Of course, I never said there was a difference.
But again, there is no difference between me waving "the flag" and you waving "the flag." I don;t see how I can make it anymore clear than that.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

What makes their use of their flag different from your use of yours?

The literal action of flag waving, nothing. Waving a flag is just as "mindless" or "thoughtful" no matter its symbolic meaning. So "their" flag waving is no different than my own.

Asked and answered.

0 Replies

Now, if you or he is suggesting that I have "wrapped myself in the flag,"
why not quote where you thunk I have done so?

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

lol
OK, first you stupidly try to equate the displaying of a flag with me saying we ought to be afraid of people "who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag." Either you're just playing dumb or you really do not understand the usage of idioms. Now you're asking me to restate my arguments after you just wrote, "If you answer it I'll be happy to comment on your arguments...there is plenty of funny stuff there too. "

What's funny, entertaining and slightly impressive, is your ability to repeatedly play dumb. Or were you just being funny when you wrote that you'd reply to my arguments?

Not to mention this guy reads things that aren't there. He foolishly and falsely writes: "I just think you making fun of other people's exhibitions of flags while exhibiting one yourself is particularly funny." Of course, when asked to quote where I made "fun of other people's exhibitions of flags" he ignored that question. I guess it would appear to you, that he too thinks ignoring questions is the same as answering them, you just didn't seem to think pointing that out was necessary.

Like I said, keep grasping...

0 Replies

I think the problem with disproving the original hypothesis that protectionism is like racism is because it seems to focus on the example of U.S. auto factories going to Mexico, where Mexicans would be employed.

For those U.S. citizens that prefer protectionism of jobs in the U.S., it doesn't matter if the jobs went to a fictitious land called Expatria, where only U.S. citizens moved for a better life. U.S. citizens are still losing jobs, and protectionism is desired to save those jobs.

The focus on U.S. citizens as opposed to Mexicans is a false argument. Who cares who gets the jobs that U.S. citizens would prefer to stay in the U.S. (where the factory has employees of all races). The loss of jobs to U.S. citizens is the concern; not who takes the jobs.

Are you Mexica claiming that U.S. citizens tend to have a particular antagonism to Mexicans having jobs? I don't think so; just not the jobs that U.S. citizens have.

But to be honest, there are U.S. citizens, of all races, that do not have warm feelings for Mexicans here in the U.S., since, in my opinion, they seem to have an ethnocentricity that may be an albatross of sorts towards assimilation. Plus, what Mexicans bring to the country is usually just their perspiration in many instances. I'd prefer Indians from India that come with degrees and technical knowledge for high-tech industries. Perspiration can be obtained from many "developing nations," without the accompanying annoying ethnocentricity, in my opinion ("Viva Mejico").

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

OK, first you stupidly try to equate the displaying of a flag with me saying we ought to be afraid of people "who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag."

I don't like nationalism and have little use for patriotic displays. When you also derided such jingoism yourself I found it incongruent with your user name and avatar which I took in similar kind. Since I pointed out potential hypocrisy on your part it is understandable that you like to think it's just "stupid" or even failure to "understand".

Quote:

Either you're just playing dumb or you really do not understand the usage of idioms.

Alternately you are merely being hypocritical for disparaging others for wrapping themselves in the U.S. flag when you wrap yourself in the Mexican flag and you don't take kindly to having your nationalism pointed out to you.

Quote:

Now you're asking me to restate my arguments after you just wrote, "If you answer it I'll be happy to comment on your arguments...there is plenty of funny stuff there too. "

I wanted you to state, in your own words, your position to me. I was hoping it would save me time by giving you the opportunity to stake out your position in one post for the first time and by denying you opportunities to play games about what the topic is, what you actually said, and how nobody understands you.

You don't seem so inclined so I will address your meaningless slogan of a position and the lone syllogism you forward that serves in way of your "arguments" for this position.

The slogan: "Protection is a lot like racism"

Your sole contention (if you think you put up more arguments that I missed feel free to point them out as I asked you to before starting) to support this mindless slogan is that protectionism is "discrimination based on national origin" and as such based on "happenstance" making it discriminatory in the same way racism is. Furthermore you challenge others to point out the differences.

That's fine, I will do so. Let's start with your axiom that protectionism is "discrimination on the basis of national origin". This is a false axiom. The "discrimination" is not on the basis of "national origin". It is on the basis of economic proximity. It's driven by economic concerns and race isn't a fundamental factor. Hell there is even protectionism within the US itself between its competing markets.

Racism is merely a tool of protectionist politics. Protectionism itself has everything to do with economy and economic gain but nothing to do with race. Nationalism, xenophobia and yes even racism are often used to campaign for protectionism but the root of the motivation has nothing to do with discriminating against a Mexican soley because he happens to be Mexican but with a economic decision to put resources back into the market close to you in hopes that it will serve your economic interests.

Now truth to tell, this is often a wrongheaded decision. Not because of any mindless slogan you are reducing it to but simply because it's not the right economic decision (my opinion, many an economist may differ). Many times the protectionism means stubbornly clinging to products or services that can simply no longer compete in a free market. Even more often it is a small subset of the nation's citizens campaigning for their own local concern that negatively impacts the greater economic concerns of the national economy. A great example of this is the steel protectionism Bush engaged in in 2001. Those moves did (and will) hurt the U.S. economy but were a strong regional concern in areas Bush needed votes. But it had nothing to do with discriminating against others for their "national origin" and everything to do with them keeping local jobs that are simply not competitive anymore. Protectionism has less in common with racism than it doesn't and the notion that "protectionism is a lot like racism" is a mindless slogan whose reductionism demonstrates a shallow understanding of the subject.

Protectionism isn't about discriminating against a Mexican. It's merely a piss-poor way to try to keep jobs that aren't competitive anymore. It happens to be stupid and I don't support it (nor borders, nor anti-immigration) but it is not fundamentally like racism or motivated by racism. It is a strategic economic decision whose manifestations often include nationalism, xenophobia and at some extremes yes racism.

0 Replies

I don't like nationalism and have little use for patriotic displays. When you also derided such jingoism yourself I found it incongruent with your user name and avatar which I took in similar kind.
-Robert Gentel

Again, you keep attributing actions or sentiments to me that I neither committed nor uttered. I will not again ask you to quote where I derided anyone for "patriotic displays," I know that I did not mock, jeer, or even mention "patriotic displays."

What I did - what you are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge or what you simply just cannot grasp - is speak disparagingly of people who employ ad hominem tactics to further their own personal gain or agenda at the expense of their fellow countrymen. In this case, I employed a variation of the commonly used idiom, "wrap oneself in the flag." Now clearly, I was not speaking in the literal sense. I mean, I certainly was not speaking disparagingly of people who actually wrap themselves in the flag; I could not care any less if people actually wrap themselves in the U.S. flag.

I was attacking people, or the idea that people use nationalistic fervor to further their selfish goals, while claiming to be acting in the favorable interests of their compatriots. Now, I do not understand how you can extrapolate for my usage of that idiom the notion that I was "making fun" of flag-waving or that I am against patriotic displays. The only way I can view your accusation of "potential hypocrisy" as being anywhere near sensible would be to accept that the idiom of "wrapping oneself in the flag" equates to the actual displaying of a flag or that the phrase itself is an example of a patriotic display. Now, I reject those contentions; and I have never heard anyone, other than you, try to shoehorn that meaning into the definition of that commonly used saying.

On a side note, I do find it ironic, and very amusing, that you would accuse me of trying to reduce this to a battle of words or playing games (talk about the pot calling the kettle black), when it was you who: 1.) mistakenly said I made fun of people displaying flags, 2.) tried to mock me by retreating to that argumentum ad populum "Look, I'm the only one marching instep" line, 3.) is now backpedaling without admitting your (lol) "potential" mistake.

You are no longer accusing me of hypocrisy, but of "potential hypocrisy." Unless the "pot calling the kettle black" idiom is no longer used to point out hypocrisy, but rather it now points out potential hypocrisy, I'd say you're full of **** - another idiom - on this one. [smile Razz

]

Anyhoo...

You don't seem so inclined so I will address your meaningless slogan of a position
-Robert Gentel

You know, I wish I could take credit, but ownership of that "meaningless slogan of a position" belongs to professor Landsburg. Doubtlessly, he thought it had meaning, or at least hopped it had the potential to be meaningful.

Your sole contention (if you think you put up more arguments that I missed feel free to point them out as I asked you to before starting) to support this mindless slogan is that protectionism is "discrimination based on national origin" and as such based on "happenstance" making it discriminatory in the same way racism is. Furthermore you challenge others to point out the differences.
-Robert Gentel

I'd say that for the most part that is correct. However, I'd add that protectionism is not solely discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Protectionism itself has everything to do with economy and economic gain but nothing to do with race.
-Robert Gentel

Again, you are creating a straw-man argument. Neither I nor Landsburg has said in this thread that so-called protectionist laws/rhetoric have anything to do with race.

Now truth to tell, this is often a wrongheaded decision. Not because of any mindless slogan you are reducing it to but simply because it's not the right economic decision (my opinion, many an economist may differ).

I never wrote protectionism is wrong because of mindless slogans, although it is often supported with mindless slogans and rhetoric.

Let's start with your axiom that protectionism is "discrimination on the basis of national origin".
-Robert Gentel

I wish that were true - that it was an axiom - but I doubt that protectionist regulations are seen unquestionably as discriminatory by the general public.

This is a false axiom. The "discrimination" is not on the basis of "national origin". It is on the basis of economic proximity. It's driven by economic concerns and race isn't a fundamental factor.
-Robert Gentel

First, no one (nether I nor Mr, Landsburg) argued that race was a fundamental factor in the enactment of protectionist regulations or is behind protectionist rhetoric/ideals. Secondly, why is it a "false axiom," and what exactly is "economic proximity"? But I do say that you are wrong when you say that the discrimination in question is not on the basis of national origin. Of course it is. It is beyond me how anyone can honestly say that protectionism is not discrimination on the basis of national origin or national affiliation, when people talk so freely about "protecting American jobs" at the expense of creating jobs in Mexico, China, or India.

But it seems as we are arguing past each other. I mean, your explanation does not conflict with the idea that protectionism is like racism. I have no doubt, and have never argued against, the idea that the motivating factor behind protectionist rhetoric or regulations, which calls for discrimination on the basis of nationality, is economic concern of those who stand to lose jobs and their fellow countrymen.

Nationalism, xenophobia and yes even racism are often used to campaign for protectionism but the root of the motivation has nothing to do with discriminating against a Mexican soley because he happens to be Mexican but with a economic decision to put resources back into the market close to you in hopes that it will serve your economic interests.
-Robert Gentel

I'd agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that when one decides to favor "American" strangers over Mexican strangers (or vice versa) for jobs, he/she has discriminated on the basis of national origin/affiliation. There was a time when protectionist rhetoric was espoused so unabashedly in the attempt to keep women from entering the work force en masse. It was argued that women would take jobs from men who were working to support families. The claimed motivation was to supposedly protect American men and, by extension, American families. But the concerns (no matter how unfounded) of the above claimed impending economic disaster was the motivation for rhetoric that called for discriminatory action on the basis of sex. Likewise, economic concerns for so-called Americans are the motivating factors in the calling for protectionism that discriminates on the basis of national origin/affiliation.

Protectionism has less in common with racism than it doesn't and the notion that "protectionism is a lot like racism" is a mindless slogan whose reductionism demonstrates a shallow understanding of the subject.
-Robert Gentel

I disagree. It is very much like racism, in that the discrimination is on the basis of a happenstance. In this case, the discrimination is on the basis of national origin or affiliation. Furthermore, I have not said that protectionism is solely aimed at Mexico and Mexicans; it has been applied to many imports from different nations. Mexicans just happened to be the example used in Landsburg's article.

0 Replies

I think the problem with disproving the original hypothesis that protectionism is like racism is because it seems to focus on the example of U.S. auto factories going to Mexico, where Mexicans would be employed.
-Foofie

Why would you consider it problematic to use Mexicans and Mexico in the article?

Are you Mexica claiming that U.S. citizens tend to have a particular antagonism to Mexicans having jobs?
-Foofie

No.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

I think the problem with disproving the original hypothesis that protectionism is like racism is because it seems to focus on the example of U.S. auto factories going to Mexico, where Mexicans would be employed.
-Foofie

Why would you consider it problematic to use Mexicans and Mexico in the article?

Are you Mexica claiming that U.S. citizens tend to have a particular antagonism to Mexicans having jobs?
-Foofie

No.

Bastante! You want to think protectionism is like racism; that's your choice. I think protectionism is like nationalism. Don't reply to my post. I am not interested in your continued arguing.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Bastante! You want to think protectionism is like racism; that's your choice. I think protectionism is like nationalism. Don't reply to my post. I am not interested in your continued arguing.

lol
And it's your choice to think that only war vets have rights to jobs.
Even though you never addressed the topic sensibly. you may continue to reply.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

I will not again ask you to quote where I derided anyone for "patriotic displays," I know that I did not mock, jeer, or even mention "patriotic displays."

Yes you will. That's your only stock and store. I generalized your negative portrayal of flag wavers into "patriotic display" because of your previous insistence on having had used the exact words that your interlocutor does. It was supposed to be generic so that I didn't have to play your silly quote game with you.

You do so again and again and will continue to do so again and again.

Quote:

What I did - what you are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge or what you simply just cannot grasp - is speak disparagingly of people who employ ad hominem tactics to further their own personal gain or agenda at the expense of their fellow countrymen.

To take a page from the Mexica playbook... No you didn't. You never once mentioned "ad hominem" in this thread till claiming to have done so now.

Quote:

In this case, I employed a variation of the commonly used idiom, "wrap oneself in the flag." Now clearly, I was not speaking in the literal sense. I mean, I certainly was not speaking disparagingly of people who actually wrap themselves in the flag; I could not care any less if people actually wrap themselves in the U.S. flag.

I am not using it in the literal sense either when I say you wrap yourself in the Mexican flag. And you know this, but prefer to engage in logomachy than defend your assertions.

Quote:

The only way I can view your accusation of "potential hypocrisy" as being anywhere near sensible would be to accept that the idiom of "wrapping oneself in the flag" equates to the actual displaying of a flag or that the phrase itself is an example of a patriotic display.

That is by choice. You can easily and reasonably conclude that your own jingoism is no different from that of those you criticized without ridiculous interpretations of the use of idioms.

Quote:

Now, I reject those contentions; and I have never heard anyone, other than you, try to shoehorn that meaning into the definition of that commonly used saying.

Nor have you heard me doing so. You simply pose a false syllogism to the effect that the only way I can be right is through such an interpretation.

Quote:

1.) mistakenly said I made fun of people displaying flags

No merely displaying flags. But wrapping themselves in the flag. To use another "Mexicaism" the only way you can come to this conclusion is if you equate the idiom with its literal meaning.

Quote:

2.) tried to mock me by retreating to that argumentum ad populum "Look, I'm the only one marching instep" line,

That was no appeal to popularity. I wasn't making any argument based on the unpopularity of your position, I was merely poking fun at you for your "nobody understands me" act. It is you, who prefer to cast yourself as an enlightened one among the dark and unable to understand lot of us and I thought it sounded as silly as the fool in the famous joke I posted to you.

You need to be able to discern an actual argument for a joke at your expense. For that to be a fallacy would have to involve an actual argument. That post consisted of nothing but the joke and a question:

Robert Gentel wrote:

"Look at my Johnny! Everyone is marching out of step except for he!"

What argument are you forwarding that you think nobody can refute?

Quote:

3.) is now backpedaling without admitting your (lol) "potential" mistake.

I can again see why it would be convenient for you to imagine me "backpedaling" but I don't even know what "(lol) 'potential' mistake" you picture me shying from.

If you are talking about me thinking you were hypocritical and that being a mistake I can clearly see why you'd like to see it in those terms but will have to agree to disagree there.

Quote:

You are no longer accusing me of hypocrisy, but of "potential hypocrisy." Unless the "pot calling the kettle black" idiom is no longer used to point out hypocrisy, but rather it now points out potential hypocrisy, I'd say you're full of **** - another idiom - on this one. [smile ]

No no, don't get me wrong. I think you are plenty the hypocrite. When I first brought it up I wasn't sure but you've erased all doubt on that regard for me.

But again, I can easily imagine you disagreeing in that regard and don't really care to rehash this yet again since we aren't going to change each other's minds.

Quote:

You know, I wish I could take credit, but ownership of that "meaningless slogan of a position" belongs to professor Landsburg.

See, this is why I asked you to state your own position. You like playing these games where you hide behind words. The bottom line is that you yourself espoused this slogan in your own arguments and I am not quoting the professor but rather you.

You said the slogan on this thread and have tried to defend it. So don't try to cop out of it using the author of the initial article yet again.

Quote:

Doubtlessly, he thought it had meaning, or at least hopped it had the potential to be meaningful.

You must have seen the same potential since you used it and defended it in this thread. Perhaps now that you are being asked to really defend it it may seem convenient to "backpedal" and lay it at the feet of the absent author of the article but it's just as transparent a gimmick as the rest of your act.

Quote:

Again, you are creating a straw-man argument. Neither I nor Landsburg has said in this thread that so-called protectionist laws/rhetoric have anything to do with race.

Leave Landsburg out of this. I have not once referred to him or his position and am only talking about yours. And to once again use a Mexicaism, I never said you claimed it was about race.

You said that protectionism is a lot like racism. You said this is because protectionism is based on national origin.

Protectionism is not based on national origin, you are wrong. Now I also want to make clear that protectionism isn't based on race either and and you, as you are wont, prefer to try to pin a logical fallacy on me by spinning this as a straw man when I've directly addressed your arguments while also making clear that protectionism is not based on race (it's not based on Mexicans either, I'm just using the examples introduced).

Quote:

I never wrote protectionism is wrong because of mindless slogans, although it is often supported with mindless slogans and rhetoric.

You posed a mindless slogan in that "protectionism is a lot like racism". It's not, and protectionism is not wrongheaded for this reason. It is wrong headed for others.

Yes (here we go again), you did not say it was wrong "because of mindless slogans", you proposed a mindless slogan to portray it as wrong that I refuted.

Quote:

I wish that were true - that it was an axiom - but I doubt that protectionist regulations are seen unquestionably as discriminatory by the general public.

Axioms are not always right. For your claim that "protectionism is a lot like racism" you relied on the notion that it is "based on national origin" as an axiom.

Without an axiomatic relationship you have no argument at all. So of course you wish it were an axiom, after all you used it as such.

Quote:

First, no one (nether I nor Mr, Landsburg) argued that race was a fundamental factor in the enactment of protectionist regulations or is behind protectionist rhetoric/ideals.

Again, leave Mr Landsburg out of this. I've not paid any attention to him at all and am addressing your position.

I have stated that it's not based on national origin nor on race and that it's not like racism.

I understand that you don't think it's motivated by race. But you claim that it's motivated by "national origin" and "a lot like racism" and I don't think it is either and I also don't think it's motivated by racism. If you agree then there's a bit of common ground but that doesn't begin to address the part where we disagree.

Quote:

Secondly, why is it a "false axiom,"

Because it is not true. Protectionism is not "based on national origin".

Quote:

and what exactly is "economic proximity"?

You know good and well what I am talking about and like to play word games.

To indulge you, I am speaking of the economic benefits from proximity. Namely that a dollar being released close to you has a greater propensity to end up back in your pocket.

Quote:

But I do say that you are wrong when you say that the discrimination in question is not on the basis of national origin. Of course it is. It is beyond me how anyone can honestly say that protectionism is not discrimination on the basis of national origin or national affiliation, when people talk so freely about "protecting American jobs" at the expense of creating jobs in Mexico, China, or India.

People talking about something "freely" doesn't make it true. Nationalism is often invoked to advocate for protectionism but that isn't it's motivating factor.

Protectionism doesn't have a long term effect of protecting anyone's jobs. That's just meaningless sloganeering.

Quote:

I mean, your explanation does not conflict with the idea that protectionism is like racism.

You forwarded the sole notion that protectionism is "based on national origin" as your substantiation. I have debunked the notion that it is. I'd say that conflicts with your slogan.

Quote:

I have no doubt, and have never argued against, the idea that the motivating factor behind protectionist rhetoric or regulations, which calls for discrimination on the basis of nationality, is economic concern of those who stand to lose jobs and their fellow countrymen.

But you also claimed that it was "based on national origin" and that because this is "happenstance" it is "a lot like racism".

You are wrong, it is not "based on national origin".

Quote:

I'd agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that when one decides to favor "American" strangers over Mexican strangers (or vice versa) for jobs, he/she has discriminated on the basis of national origin/affiliation.

No, the discrimination is on the basis of economic motivation. National origin is a coincidental part of it.

Quote:

There was a time when protectionist rhetoric was espoused so unabashedly in the attempt to keep women from entering the work force en masse.

Modern economic protectionism has more to do with trade deficits and trade relations than what you are describing as "protectionist rhetoric" here.

Quote:

It was argued that women would take jobs from men who were working to support families. The claimed motivation was to supposedly protect American men and, by extension, American families. But the concerns (no matter how unfounded) of the above claimed impending economic disaster was the motivation for rhetoric that called for discriminatory action on the basis of sex. Likewise, economic concerns for so-called Americans are the motivating factors in the calling for protectionism that discriminates on the basis of national origin/affiliation.

If the former was a pretext for discrimination based on sex and the latter is genuine economic concern then no, there is not a significant similarity that supports your position.

The former example was, in fact, based on discriminating against a sex while the latter is based on economic motivation using the discrimination as a pretext.

Quote:

I disagree. It is very much like racism, in that the discrimination is on the basis of a happenstance.

"Discrimination on the basis of a happenstance" does not equate to "very much like racism".

I happened to meet my girlfriend and now plan to marry her. That discriminating decision is nothing at all like racism.

Quote:

In this case, the discrimination is on the basis of national origin or affiliation.

We already did this. No it is not "on the basis of national origin" and your ipse dixit does not make it true even if you wash once and repeat.

Quote:

Furthermore, I have not said that protectionism is solely aimed at Mexico and Mexicans; it has been applied to many imports from different nations. Mexicans just happened to be the example used in Landsburg's article.

I never claimed you did Mexica. I'm merely using the examples you started off with.

Quote:

But it seems as we are arguing past each other.

Yes, but I lay the blame squarely at your feet. I am more than willing to discuss what your arguments are but you hide behind the words of others and refuse to concisely state and defend a position.

In any case, we may well agree that this is an exercise in futility and I don't wish to contribute further unless you declare a position in your own words and support it. Otherwise I'm disinclined to join another lap of this pool (idiom alert!).

0 Replies

I generalized your negative portrayal of flag wavers into "patriotic display" because of your previous insistence on having had used the exact words that your interlocutor does.
-Robert Gentel

Nah, what you did was just make **** up, and you'll "continue to do so again and again."

To take a page from the Mexica playbook... No you didn't. You never once mentioned "ad hominem" in this thread till claiming to have done so now.
-Robert Gentel

lol *Takes a page from Robert Gentel's play book*
Yes, I did.

I am not using it in the literal sense either when I say you wrap yourself in the Mexican flag. And you know this, but prefer to engage in logomachy than defend your assertions.
-Robert Gentel

*Takes a page from Robert Gentel's play book*
You are using it in the literal sense, and you know it, but prefer to engage in logomachy than defend your assertions.

No merely displaying flags. But wrapping themselves in the flag.
-Robert Gentel

I'm not sure what you're babbling about here, so it requires no more of my attention.

You need to be able to discern an actual argument for a joke at your expense.
- Robert Gentel

Like most everything you have written in this thread, it was sub-moronic.

I can again see why it would be convenient for you to imagine me "backpedaling" but I don't even know what "(lol) 'potential' mistake" you picture me shying from
- Robert Gentel

*Takes a page from Robert Gentel's play book*

You know you're backpedaling, that's why changed your accusation of me being a hypocrite, to one of me being a potential hypocrite.

No no, don't get me wrong. I think you are plenty the hypocrite. When I first brought it up I wasn't sure but you've erased all doubt on that regard for me.
-Robert Gentel

*Takes a page from Robert Gentel's play book*

No you don't, you have plenty of doubt. You're just trying to keep from potentially looking more foolish, and you know it.

See, this is why I asked you to state your own position. You like playing these games where you hide behind words. The bottom line is that you yourself espoused this slogan in your own arguments and I am not quoting the professor but rather you.
-Robert Gentel

*Takes a page from Robert Gentel's play book*

No, it is you who lives to play games and hide behind words; well, maybe you just live to potentially hide behind words. And you know that it is not my position, or rather I'm am not the original author of the idea: protectionism is a lot like racism. But since you cannot make an intelligent counter to that, you'd rather play games and ask me to take credit for someone else's idea.

You said the slogan on this thread and have tried to defend it. So don't try to cop out of it using the author of the initial article yet again.
-Robert Gentel

Actually Robert, I restated Landsburg's position.
*Takes a page from Robert Gentel's play book*

You know that I'm not trying to "cop out." and you know that I have knocked everything you've thrown at me out of the park.

You must have seen the same potential since you used it and defended it in this thread.
-Robert Gentel

Finally, Robert, you get it.
I did use it and I have defended it.

Leave Landsburg out of this. I have not once referred to him or his position and am only talking about yours.
-Robert Gentel

Wait, you are regressing, Robert - and you were doing so well. You seemed to understand that it was his argument that I had used and defended. And now, you want to leave Landsburg out of this and talk about my position? You already noted above that I have used and defended his position. And now you're acting as if me saying it's his argument is a problem?

I never said you claimed it was about race.
-Robert Gentel

And I never said you did.
but you did write: "protectionism itself has everything to do with economy and economic gain but nothing to do with race." And I agree, it has nothing to do with race.
But what I did write, is that protectionism is a lot like racism, in that it discriminates on the basis of happenstance. In this regard, it is just as morally repugnant to discriminate on the basis of national origin as it is to discriminate on the basis of race.

You said that protectionism is a lot like racism. You said this is because protectionism is based on national origin.
-Robert Gentel

Damn, Robert, your ability to state the obvious is potentially only second to your ability to backpedal.
That is true, Robert, I did say those things

Protectionism is not based on national origin, you are wrong.
-Robert Gentel

Protectionism is based on national origin, you are wrong. Laughing

Now I also want to make clear that protectionism isn't based on race either
-Robert Gentel

Your belated acknowledgement is appreciated.

I've directly addressed your arguments while also making clear that protectionism is not based on race.
-Robert Gentel

No you haven't, Robert.

You posed a mindless slogan in that "protectionism is a lot like racism."
-Robert Gentel

Well, I disagree with your opinion. But what I said, and what you failed (again) to respond to, was that l never wrote protectionism is wrong because of mindless slogans, like you implied.

Yes (here we go again), you did not say it was wrong "because of mindless slogans", you proposed a mindless slogan to portray it as wrong that I refuted.
-Robert Gentel

You have refuted nothing, Robert, and you know this.

Axioms are not always right.
-Robert Gentel

Another stunning display of your ability to state the obvious.
That is true, Robert; axioms are "not always right."

For your claim that "protectionism is a lot like racism" you relied on the notion that it is "based on national origin" as an axiom.
-Robert Gentel

No I didn't Robert; and you know it.

Without an axiomatic relationship you have no argument at all. So of course you wish it were an axiom, after all you used it as such.
-Robert Gentel

That simply isn't true, Robert. I never said nor implied that it was unquestionable truth that required no proof. That's just you making up things, again.

Again, leave Mr Landsburg out of this. I've not paid any attention to him at all and am addressing your position.
-Robert Gentel

Make me leave him out of this. lol
And yes, I can see why you'd focus on "my" position over his - they are so counter to one another. /sarcasm

But you claim that it's motivated by "national origin" and "a lot like racism" and I don't think it is either and I also don't think it's motivated by racism.
-Robert Gentel

No, I don't think I ever said protectionism was motivated by national origin. But if I did, please quote where I wrote that.

You know good and well what I am talking about and like to play word games.
-Robert Gentel

While I know you like to think you know what I know and don't know, I can assure you I had no idea of your exact meaning of "economic proximity." And since you have a hard enough time understanding your own words, I'd say it is asking too much of me to know what you mean when you employ such a vague phrase.

To indulge you, I am speaking of the economic benefits from proximity. Namely that a dollar being released close to you has a greater propensity to end up back in your pocket.
-Robert Gentel

lol So "economic proximity" means: a dollar being released close to you has a greater propensity to end up back in your pocket.
Brilliant, Robert, just brilliant!

People talking about something "freely" doesn't make it true. Nationalism is often invoked to advocate for protectionism but that isn't it's motivating factor.
-Robert Gentel

Robert, again you're missing the point by not reading carefully.
I wrote:

Quote:

But I do say that you are wrong when you say that the discrimination in question is not on the basis of national origin. Of course it is. It is beyond me how anyone can honestly say that protectionism is not discrimination on the basis of national origin or national affiliation, when people talk so freely about "protecting American jobs" at the expense of creating jobs in Mexico, China, or India.

I never mentioned a motivating factor in the paragraph you're responding to. So, it is beyond me why you'd mention nationalism and imply that I said it was a motivation factor.

Protectionism doesn't have a long term effect of protecting anyone's jobs. That's just meaningless sloganeering.
-Robert Gentel

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "long term" - but I'd say that protectionism works well at protecting in the long term certain jobs.

You forwarded the sole notion that protectionism is "based on national origin" as your substantiation. I have debunked the notion that it is. I'd say that conflicts with your slogan.
-Robert Gentel

You haven't debunked anything, Robert, and you know it.

Quote:

I have no doubt, and have never argued against, the idea that the motivating factor behind protectionist rhetoric or regulations, which calls for discrimination on the basis of nationality, is economic concern of those who stand to lose jobs and their fellow countrymen.

But you also claimed that it was "based on national origin" and that because this is "happenstance" it is "a lot like racism." You are wrong, it is not "based on national origin."

No, Robert, you're wrong. The discrimination that is brought about by protectionist regulation, is based on national origin.

Quote:

I'd agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that when one decides to favor "American" strangers over Mexican strangers (or vice versa) for jobs, he/she has discriminated on the basis of national origin/affiliation.

No, the discrimination is on the basis of economic motivation. National origin is a coincidental part of it.
-Robert Gentel

No, discrimination is based on national origin/affiliation. I'd agree that it is partially the result of economic motivation. And there is nothing "coincidental" about the application of protectionist measures.

Quote:

There was a time when protectionist rhetoric was espoused so unabashedly in the attempt to keep women from entering the work force en masse.

Modern economic protectionism has more to do with trade deficits and trade relations than what you are describing as "protectionist rhetoric" here.
-Robert Gentel

"Modern economic protectionism" has to do with protecting a certain group at the expense of the general population. It was the same then; it's the same now.

If the former was a pretext for discrimination based on sex and the latter is genuine economic concern then no, there is not a significant similarity that supports your position.
-Robert Gentel

Nah, you're wrong again, and you know it.

"Discrimination on the basis of a happenstance" does not equate to "very much like racism".
-Robert Gentel

Discrimination on the basis of a happenstance" does equate to "very much like racism."

I happened to meet my girlfriend and now plan to marry her. That discriminating decision is nothing at all like racism.
-Robert Gentel

This has nothing to with anything being talked about on this tread, but I'd agree with that, Robert. If you happened to meet your girlfriend and marry her, that "discriminating decision is nothing like racism." Again, you have truly mastered the knack for stating the obvious, Robert.
Bravo!

Yes, but I lay the blame squarely at your feet.
-Robert Gentel

I lay the blame squarely at our feet.
You invent ideas and then incorrectly and dishonestly attribute them to me; you make up vague and laughable phrases (e.g. economic proximity & potential hypocrisy); and you go on to presume to tell me what I know.

I am more than willing to discuss what your arguments
-Robert Gentel

No, you're not.

but you hide behind the words of others and refuse to concisely state and defend a position.
-Robert Gentel

We already did this. No, I don't hide behind the words of others and I have stated clearly and defended (as you noted above) a position, and your ipse dixit does not make it true even if you wash once and repeat.

In any case, we may well agree that this is an exercise in futility and I don't wish to contribute further unless you declare a position in your own words and support it. Otherwise I'm disinclined to join another lap of this pool (idiom alert!).
-Robert Gentel

Well, you weren't contributing much of anything, save for some entertainment, so no real loss there.
So long, Robert.

0 Replies

Why protectionism is a lot like racism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know