Free market is best, deal with it.

Do you expect me to trust a socialist to redistribute wealth? Hah! They will just fill the power vacuum left by the plutocracy and serve their own interests, or serve the plutocracy if they are social democrats.

Infallible logical proof to follow...

The only way to empower the working class is to give them the individual freedom to secure them from and oppose any political authority that is being abusive, whether it's a Tsar or a people's republic, actual structural changes, not some mystical ideology. Such freedoms include the freedom to unionize, to strike, property law including regulations related to law enforcement such as safety regulations (your body is your property) and anti-fraud legislation, all such things are completely justified. This does not include oppressions like corporate welfare, arbitrary taxes, tariffs and subsidies, special tax codes and legal immunities for board members and other such examples of keynesian interventionism that self-avowed "progressives" are often seen tripping over conservatives in the rush to protect.

Win.

No, it isn't. What is best is regulated capitalism mixed with limited socialism and with a strong social safety net, aka, social democracy. An unregulated free market is just law of the jungle. If you want that go live in a jungle.

>>3
What you describe is only "best" for leftist politicians who want to expropriate money at gunpoint from productive citizens, then shovel it down the throats of niggers and wetbacks to reward them for shuffling into the booth every four years and pulling the lever with the "D" beside it.

Let the best proceed unhindered and the worst proceed unaided.  If all the niggers and spics starve to death in the first six months, nothing of value was lost.

So this Free Market thing, it is always only good? Even to Enron employees?

Freedom to unionize... I hope you mean voluntary unionism and not the current thing.

The British Empire became great through protectionism.
The US became great through protectionism.
Japan became great through protectionism.
China will probably become great through protectionism.

I'M NOTICING A TREND HERE

>>7
Exactly. We need to inculcate the idea to people that protectionism = good.

>>7
>>8
Wow, the real world must be that simple. Iceland should grow it's oranges in greenhouses from now on.

>>9
What's wrong with growing oranges in a greenhouse? If Icelanders want to build a greenhouse to grow oranges, more power to them. Those that want genuine oranges imported will have to pay more, which is already the case anyway for anything that is genuine and imported from elsewhere.

If that's your argument against protectionist policies, it's rather weak.

>>9
Yes, in this case the world is that simple.

Every major economic power in history has been protectionist.

The free market remains confined to the fantasies of obese gun hoarding neckbeards.

>>11
True. I would still argue that markets back then were much freer and less regulated than they are today. Protectionist policies are generally good, and if there's a time when western nations need to revisit them, it's now and long overdue.

>>10
>>implying that oranges cultivated in a greenhouse are in any way not "real oranges"

>>13
We're talking about protectionism, not oranges. Stay on topic or leave the thread to the adults. Also, take your >implying bullshite back to the imageboards.

>>10
What's wrong with growing oranges in a greenhouse?
Nothing, what's wrong is forcing people to pay extra just so the oranges are grown in Iceland, instead of imported from Spain at a fraction of the cost.
Those that want genuine oranges imported will have to pay more
Why?
>>11
Every major economic power in history has been protectionist.
Victorian Britain was dedicated to free trade. Read more books.
>>12
The markets were more free and less regulation, they became economic powers by expanding their economies to include foreign markets and foreign resources. Protectionism is only good as a reaction against other protectionists.
>>13
They're more expensive because of the huge heating and lighting bill.
>>14
Oranges are a commodity that is cheap in some countries and expensive in others, protectionism is about taxing trade, if you can't see how oranges are related you must have a pretty deluded view of protectionism.

less regulated*

>>15
Why?
Because excise taxes and tariffs will make imported items more expensive than domestically produced ones. Let's be fair though, the oranges and Iceland is an extreme example.

They're more expensive because of the huge heating and lighting bill.
Couldn't they mitigate the cost from geothermal energy? Last I checked, Iceland does have a few volcanoes and hot spots.

Oranges are a commodity that is cheap in some countries and expensive in others, protectionism is about taxing trade, if you can't see how oranges are related you must have a pretty deluded view of protectionism.
>>13 was trying to derail the thread talking about the oranges themselves.

>>15
Victorian Britain was dedicated to free trade.
That was also back when Britain still had a sizable empire. It had "free trade" with the colonies it still held power over. The biggest probably being India and Australia. Not a good example. Next.

>>17
make imported items more expensive
Why is it good if things are more expensive?
oranges and Iceland is an extreme example.
The principle can be extended to less extreme examples, if producing aluminium in Iceland and shipping it to Spain costs one euro less than producing aluminium in Spain then there is still no reason consumers of aluminium should be forced to buy the more expensive Spanish aluminium. The Spanish aluminium companies will just have to stop dipping into other people's pockets, accept healthy competition and improve their business like they're supposed to.
geothermal energy
Sun heating is free.

I don't deny that protectionism is justified in some cases, for instance as a reaction against protectionism by other countries or to make sure the country is self-sufficient if world war 3 breaks out, I just reject the notion that protectionism is the ideal. The ideal is free trade, producing goods where it is most economical, this has nothing to do with multi-national corporations or capitalism, it's a universal law, you could be a fruity communist utopia and it would still make more sense to grow oranges in Spain and use Iceland's cheap geothermal electricity to produce aluminium.

>>13 was trying to derail the thread
Actually reading it again I'm not sure what he was talking about.

>>18
That wasn't until late in the empire, incidentally when it was crumbling. Before then the decidedly free trade liberal party dominated politics, repealing the corn laws to force agricultural workers into the cities and signing free trade agreements with other countries to improve British manufacturing exports.

I can't stand so called "conservatives" who support economic lilberalism. Protectionism is a good thing.