Skip to main content

Why Protectionism is a Fools Paradise


I'm going to discuss the economic institution called protectionism. How that is inherent in Intellectual Property rights(aka IP) and what its effects on the general macro economy are. And I'll forecast confidently how those benefiting from it will resist the analysis fiercely, devoting a great deal of intellect and capital to that resistance.

We're not saying protectionism is either a good or bad thing. We are just pointing at it for you to analyse yourselves and decide. So please do not project any 'terms of endearment' onto us. Just look at it as independently of worldview as possible. Its better done in a quiet moment after taking a deep breath.

Protection in the economic sense, is where your business gets privileged help from the state, so that other business are prohibited by law from competing with your business, under free conditions. 

It comes in several forms. The form most widely discussed but the smallest in value is Intellectual Property. The largest form is taxation of sales, typically as a border tariff, or within borders a tax on the sales of goods and services to protect your own people from themselves. Economically all forms of it deliver an 'economic rent' to the beneficiary much like state provided welfare.

Its important to recognise that a business which receives these state benefits, also has other income which is 'earned'. That is, they have committed the inputs of labour and capital for the outputs in profit, and this is certainly a good thing and by rights belongs to them. And in contrast to IP this income indeed should be protected by the law, simply by abolishing the institution of protectionism. But this earned income is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the un-earned income in IP. It's an easy thing to separate the rent seeking from the capitalist profit.

Who pays for these state benefits or some might say 'corporate welfare'? Astonishingly no one seems to care that un-earned incomes received from protectionism must be a socialised cost to a nation. Because the law costs a lot to uphold. And the costs of these protected benefits are paid in full by the hard work, skill and free enterprise of anyone who does not receive them. So, everyone, except the beneficiary must pay for it, by force. Or do we all know this very well already and secretly aspire to the protection ourselves one day and this is the reason no one places it under proper scrutiny?

Following are some questions to ask a rentier seeking protection from the middle class:

  • On intellectual property, why the need for this protection, if so brilliant an entrepreneur and innovator. Surely your invention is unbeatable already?
  • If you worry that your IP is quite beatable, then why don't you welcome the better version as soon as possible for the world, rather than seek the benefits of protection from the state?
  • Why the sudden concern about others using your idea - you already did this to those before you. Who did not apply for protection or do not have the capacity to fight it in court? Sure, that is their problem. Nonetheless, you sought protection yet you're claiming innovation and free enterprise.
  • Is this really your lack of confidence. Are you worried that others who are smarter than you, will soon have your poorer quality idea shelved anyway, and quickly develop a much better version?
  • Or do you believe that no one else will ever think of a better way of doing things than you, a historic first, in which case why seek protection?
  • Image a situation where protection is the general case for every business. So that every business receives the benefits at zero cost to their personal economy and full cost to political economy. An inevitable great recession must be priced into the economy by virtue of its own policy? Wait... is this not where we are today?
  • Imagine how high an economy would climb if there were no protectionism like this - for new ideas, for goods and services, on sales within and on our borders, for greater revenue and larger tax base?
  • Could a market still be cornered without protectionism. Could monopolies like Big Tech still emerge if the institution of protection were abolished. Think about it, no complex and difficult new policy needs to be formed. Parliament simply 'burns the pieces of paper' which originally made it law?

Free from protectionism, especially in IP, would truly great people find it easier to rise to the top. Would they actually start trying again after 40 days in the wilderness. 

Leadership of purity and thrift might regain its foothold in our societies.

Labels:

Popular Posts

A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States (UKEXIT)

A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States Executive Summary This initiative seeks to foster a formal dialogue regarding the potential accession of the countries of the United Kingdom , to the United States , as individual states.  Being English the main focus is for the country of England to accede. The original intent was to ask the government to lead on it through a petition leading to the question coming before the House of Commons. This was crushed out of hand by the committee leading petitions, which was not a surprise.  Simply put, this petition is asking the government to start a conversation about the benefits of leaving the UK and joining the United States. Let us call the initiative UKEXIT (yukezit) The objective is to evaluate the benefits to citizens and stakeholders, encouraging a constructive discourse on the political, economic, and social implications of such a union. If Wales , Northern Ireland , Scotland , or  England were to leave the Unit...
Read more

The 450 Volt Truth: From Orwell to Obedience

A Complete Thread on Dystopia, Milgram, and Breaking the Agentic State - Why People Act Irrationally and Often Violently When a Tribal Social Structure and Its Hierarchy Are Brought Under Serious Scrutiny This is a tricky topic. Please read the Obedience Glossary of Terms before proceeding Executive Summary This piece was written from a long conversation with Grok. I had to interrogate the AI quite a bit. And was astonished at how it produced such intelligence. I've included the most pertinent parts. Do not be fooled into thinking this is just another Orwell analysis. That is just setting the scene well. For what comes later on the agentic state and how power uses it to control the masses.  It may not have all the answers. It might wrong. A lot of it is very hard to believe is happening. But it still seems to fit the bizarre world of system wide dissonance we all live and partake in today, better than all the alternatives. So deserves your continued attention. By all means make yo...
Read more

Government & Tax Death Toll

I'm going to show you how government and taxation causes more excess death than any other factor, even global wars and pandemics. It is and always has been the biggest genocide of all. And its deliberate. Government doesn’t just fail to save lives — it takes them, at scale.  2–6 million globally 200K–400K in the U.S. 50K–80K in the UK Every year. Every tax. Every regulation. Cumulatively since 1970 government and tax killed between 160 and 300 million people across the globe  More than all 20th century wars and genocides combined (260M) In the U.S. ten times more than all U.S. combat deaths in history (10 * 1.2M) In the UK equivalent to 1 in 15 of all deaths And the nations with more regulations and a higher tax to GDP ratio such as the UK and US, tend to kill more of their own citizens per capita. The poorest nations have a better record than the richest. All this excess death is rooted in the institutions of taxation - the theft of private property, by force, against your fr...
Read more