Quote:
Originally Posted by indago
Adam Smith, a British economist who has been quoted by American statesmen, and Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote, in his book Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, "If the free importation of foreign manufactures were permitted, several of the home manufactures would probably suffer, and some of them, perhaps, go to ruin altogether...". He noted that "two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation." Mr. Smith had studied under Professor Francis Hutcheson, who had written, in his book System of Moral Philosophy, in the chapter Of the Nature of Civil Laws and their Execution: "Foreign materials should be imported and even premiums given, when necessary, that all our own hands may be employed; and that, by exporting them again manufactured, we may obtain from abroad the price of our labours. Foreign manufactures and products ready for consumption should be made dear to the consumer by high duties, if we cannot altogether prohibit the consumption;..."
How does this differ from Lincoln's premises?
|
Thanks for the interesting presentation of your question.
Here is a quote from Smith:
Quote:
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
|
Smith's Law, Free Trade, and Free Immigration
In my view Adman Smith's primary focus was on the consumer. So, if a good or service could be more efficiently and less costly produced and imported to the benefit of the consumer it was a good thing and would allow a reciprocal exchange of another good or service. My view of a mercantilist is somewhat the opposite of what Smith states in that production is put in front of consumption.
I can not reconcile your quote with the quote I provided, they appear contradictory. I may have to dig up a copy of A Wealth of Nations and figure this out. However, I do agree with the quote you provided up to the point of "...two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation...". Artificial restraints on importation will not lead to "enrichment". However, if another nation is "dumping" goods and services at artificially low cost that can be harmful to developing industries in a nation. Perhaps in context this is what he meant.
---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The following two factoids are bigger indicators than the OP focus, which was on one contract for the oil fields in Canada. (And it should be noted that China recently let an Australian multi-billion-dollar natural gas contract expire: a PetroChina $US40-billion-dollar deal.)
- In 2009, Chinese exports surpassed Germany, making China the world's largest exporter.
Why China?s unexpected export, import growth is a good sign for others / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
- Also in 2009, China surpassed the U.S. to become the world's largest auto market.
AFP: China overtakes US as world's largest auto market
Now, the issue with the OP is a concern over Chinese economic expansionism in relation to America's position as the number-one economy in the world.
However, I'd like to ask if China's performance—especially at this juncture in the business cycle (i.e. recovery)—should be considered a bad thing? |
I do not consider China's growth and economic development a bad thing. I think open markets with free exchanges is beneficial to everyone. I think China is embracing this concept at a time when traditional economic powers like Germany and the US are increasing their focus on restricting markets and increasing costs to do business hindering free exchanges. One day it may be easier to start and grow a business in China than in the US or a country like Germany. That is ironic.
Quote:
|
Isn't a strong Chinese economy a good thing at this moment, especially since they're increasing what they're importing as well as exporting? GM China is the most successful auto company in the country. How do you think GM in North America is continuing to payout their huge pension roll?
|
A strong Chinese economy is a good thing.
A strong Canadian economy is a good thing also, I am not picking on Canada, but the question begs to be asked. Why isn't Canadian companies developing Canadian oil sands, financed by Canadian banks as opposed to the current method of partnering with foreign countries and corporations?
Quote:
|
In Canada especially, economists are hoping for a continued strong growth in China (well, BRIC in general) so that we can continue to export our resources to them as a major part of our own economic recovery.
|
On a global view your point is the same as mine on a national view. Canada wants China to do well because it benefits Canada. I want Exxon - Mobile to do well because it benefits Americans.
Quote:
|
I know the U.S. has had an issue over how China's fixing of the yuan is a huge factor in their own trade deficit with the country...but isn't there a number of opportunities in working with China's seemingly inevitable economic dominance?
|
I am not clear on want China's motivation is. I understand capitalist and I understand capitalist's motives. I simply do not understand China, given the history and the current trends.