Talk:Protectionism/Archives/2015

The Protectionism Policy for Australian Aboriginals (1901-1937)

The protectionism policy was brought about because the Europeans settlers believed that the aboriginal people were not self-sufficient; they couldn't manage themselves and therefore needed their assistance. This sort of a view was dominant within the European society due to the lack of a 'constitution' or 'government' within the Aboriginal community:the aboriginal people had infact, verbal rules for their society, but these were hard for Europeans to understand, as they were accustomed to their way of governing a country. The main factor which caused the great divide between the Europeans and Aborinal people was because of their differences in spiritual values, which relates back to the 'Dreamtime' in the Aborginal religion. Thus, Europeans declared the Australian soil as terra nullius (no-man's land) and decided to take control.

The protectionism policy which lasted from 1901-1937, was based on the idea of paternalism; Europeans were like a fatherly figure to the Aboriginal people. During the protectionism policy, every state in Australia, had its own set of rights for Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal people did not have the same rights as European settlers at the time, and this continued uptil the introduction of the 'Self Determination' policy in 1972. The protectionism policy allowed aboriginal people to be put into reserves; land that was allocated by the government and in return, aboriginal people were provided with food supply, education and the Christian religion practises. Apart from that, several aboriginal people were sent over to war,and many did not receive any recognition for their efforts in fighting for Australia, because they were not recognised as Australian citizens up until then.

The protectionism policy later developed another policy, known as the Assimilation policy, which lasted from 1937-1967. The assmilation policy was the removal of aborginal children from their homes into European families, so they could be taught the European way of life, with education, food, shelter and the Christian religion. From the assimilation policy came out the stolen generations, which refers to the children who were removed from their homes. There are cases where children suffered from mistreatment and there are cases where children, (who have now grown up into adults) and have not suffered such consequences at all in their past. However, there is a common sense of loss of identity, culture and family relationships within individuals today as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No2Rehash (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this not biased?

Under "Protectionism in the United States," the last paragraph very much looks like a partisan, biased argument, the kind you would find perhaps on Fox News. The most notable part goes as such:

"Northern Progressives sought free trade to undermine the power base of Republicans – Woodrow Wilson would admit as much in a speech to Congress. However, he was busy enacting the JIm Crow laws that would shame the country for eternity. A brief resurgence by Republicans in the 1920s and the tax cuts they implemented saved the nation. Woodrow Wilson's ideological understudy[citation needed], Franklin Roosevelt, would essentially blame the Great Depression upon the protectionist policies exemplified by the previous Republican President, Herbert Hoover.[citation needed]However, this was just political postering as history would prove."

Does anyone else here also see something partisan in this? -- And Rew 09:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these are biased additions by someone with poor capitalization ("JIm Crow") and spelling ("political postering"[sic]). Dhsu (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolving issues

I've made some small initial changes attempting to resolve places other editors have noted problems, but mainly flagged a few more citation and POV issues. Any help fixing the article is welcome! -- BemusedObserver (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Can the map be improved?

The article really needs a good map, but I'm concerned that this map is misleading, because - as far as I can tell -

• It seems to count recent protectionist measures rather than longstanding ones;
• It seems to count individual protectionist measures rather than balancing them against liberalising ones;
• It seems to suffer from reporting bias, or some other kind of selectivity; I notice that the palest areas of the map include countries which, according to other good sources, have implemented protectionist measures - but which don't get much Western media coverage. For instance, the map says that Yemen didn't do anything protectionist at all since 2008; but the AfDB ranks it second worst among all LDCs, with 64 trade protection measures.

A better world is possible; a better map is possible. bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

its always easy to complain about other content instead creating your own.--Crossswords (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you repeatedly adding content which misleads readers? That's bad. bobrayner (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't our job to do original research or to articulate our personal critique of legitimate research by others. Our job as editors is to report. If the organization that created the map is not simply some guy in his/her basement but something real then, since the map is relevant, I argue that it belongs in the article. Please agree or disagree and say why. If there are organizations (or bonafide researchers, etc.) with different results then these results should be included as well; or at least mentioned (and cited) in the caption for this map. What do you think? Leegrc (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not original research to point out that map directly contradicts what other reliable sources say. In that light, it's difficult to understand why you would believe that the source meets WP:RS. I'd love to have an accurate map; not this map. bobrayner (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that including all sides of the story can result in improperly including some fringe stuff. However, what makes it fringe or unreliable (and hence requiring exclusion) is not whether it is aligned with the majority view, but whether the source is legitimate. I would immediately join your side of the argument if you can impeach the relevant credentials of the source. (Politely of course.) Leegrc (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already provided one example of where the map directly contradicts a reliable source; how many more factual errors must be highlighted before we can withdraw the map? bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I may end up on your side bobrayner, but I don't know it yet; I need more evidence. If we cannot impeach the credentials of this map's source, then we have a tougher hill to climb. IMHO, having just one source that contradicts the map is not sufficient. However, since the two legitimate sources we have disagree, a reasonable solution is that both should be included in the article. Leegrc (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Another example, then?

The World Bank reckons that Africa has the highest tariffs, and OECD countries the lowest. The map gives the opposite impression. bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But Crossswords keeps on reinserting misleading content, whilst accusing me of vandalism and refusing to discuss the problem. This is frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Crossswords, why are you repeatedly adding content which misleads readers? That's bad. bobrayner (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Crosswords's latest constructive criticism is that there were no sources for the sentence indicating alternative points of view. Perhaps if you could fill in one or two there, Bobrayner, we'd be a little closer to a solution that works for everyone. Thank you to you both. Leegrc (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The citations have been added, but Crossswords (talk) still finds the edit objectionable, with edit comment "pov push, people said here it should be neutral when i put comments on the description". I need clarification as to how showing that reliable sources disagree is "pov push". Also, please clarify "people said here it should be neutral when i put comments on the description"; which people, which of your comments, and what was their feedback? Leegrc (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

-the first link you provided says that its data its coming from Global Trade alert the same source like mine and it totally approves my map. The countries you see are in fact the most exposed ones to protectionism not the other way around like you described in your edit.--Crossswords (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The slowdown in the euro zone economy in 2011 is expected to deepen in 2012, with recent evidence indicating that the debt ridden single currency bloc is in a «mild recession”. Historical evidence shows that recessions tend to bring about protectionist policy measures as a means to cushion against the impact of external shocks.

The global recession of 2008-09 was accompanied by bailout funds (stimulus packages) to shore up the private sector as bank credit dried up. However, recent budgetary pressures and sovereign credit downgrades imply that such subsidies may no longer be affordable, especially in Europe. Recent evidence suggests that under the economic conditions prevailing in Europe, the re-emergence of traditional forms of protectionism as a buffer should not be brushed off. This means that the debt crisis in Europe has increased the likelihood that member countries could resort to regulatory based interventions to protect local private firms severely affected by the crisis.

Data from Global Trade Alert shows that since the G20 summit held in November 2008 to discuss the effects of the global financial crisis, close to 200 trade protection measures have been instituted. This has had deleterious effects on commercial interests of LDCs, including Africa. Export taxes and tariff measures accounted for 41% of total policy instruments, whereas export subsidies, non-tariff barriers and state aid measures (bailouts) constituted 43%. Nine of the twelve countries that have been subjected to forty or more protectionist measures during the same period are in Africa (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Number of times commercial interests were harmed (Nov 2008 to 27 October 2011) Of these countries, Tanzania and Sudan were the most exposed to protectionist measures of varying intensity and form. For instance, close to 90% of the 61 measures facing Tanzania are in form of export subsidies, export tax restrictions, tariff and non-tariff measures and state aid measures. The same group of measures accounted for 80% and 92% of total trade measures facing Sudan and Senegal, respectively. The G20, on average, accounted for close to half of the trade measures facing the three countries. Non-OECD member countries, Latin American countries and other Asian states accounted for the remaining half.

In relative to terms, African governments have not resorted to protectionism on the scale of industrialized countries and developing country peers during the global economic slowdown of 2008-2009 as well as the current recession. The total number of protectionist measures introduced by African countries between November 2008 and October 2011 stood at 89 compared with 340 by the G8, 762 by the G20 and 259 by the EU27. Nonetheless, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa, account for 60% of the measures introduced by African countries although the exposure of other African countries to these measures was lower relative to those imposed by developed countries.

And the second link is outdated its for 2004-2006, its not really about protectionism but infrastructure and export performance in africa etc. The source itself is from the World Bank, the same group who is now backing Global Trade Alert who have more updated data.--Crossswords (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)