Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. If China wants to subsidize its industries and sell Americans cheap goods then that is primarily an issue for the Chinese people, not for American consumers. Absorbing global manufacturing has made Americans the richest people with the highest purchasing power on the planet, has subjected American companies t…
> As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. Milton Friedman says that because he's a policy advisor of countries that benefit from others dropping their protectionist policies. At a certain state of development (and when you are not yet top dog to dictate what "free" trade means to other countries), you need some well balanced protectionist policies.…
Friedman has been called many things but inconsistent or unprincipled were not among them. He advocated for free trade for the same reasons free trade is the overwhelming consensus of economists; it works and they can explain why whether you want the verbal or mathematical explanation.
Well balanced protectionist polices may be worth it theoretically but all a nation is really doing that way is increasing the variance of their economic growth. It’s a gamble. It could be a costly failure that retards growth for decades before being dismantled as in Ireland, India and Argentina or it could work, as in South Korea or Japan. Note that protectionist policies are not necessary for export lead growth. Hong Kong did just fine with unilateral free trade.