The globalists are alarmed at the inevitable rise of protectionism in the wake of this present crisis, having been raised on, and largely being dependent on, a globalist doctrine.

But I’ve always found “protectionism” to be a rather strange criticism: if it is not the purpose of a national government to protect the interests of a nation, just what exactly is it for?

Beyond a certain degree, making things cheaper is utterly pointless.  If people can afford to buy n things, they will want n + 1 things, regardless of the value of n.

And if in the process of cheapening those things, some sectors of the economy disappear from a nation, leaving a subset of people financially without purpose, that is a big problem for everyone in the nation.

Protectionism is not a sin.  It’s not a regression.  It’s a sign of life.

Make your nation strong and healthy.  Make trade agreements to further your alliances and economic well-being.

The global macroeconomic religion we’ve lived under since Breton Woods is the aberration here, and I think that is one of the few things that both the left and the right can agree on.

That regime is perhaps unbreakable in nations which have forsaken long-term national strategy and thinking, and/or no longer care about their fellow countryman.

But not every nation is like that.  Some still play the long game.  Some still plan for tomorrow, at the expense of today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.