In argument of protectionism
By Jackson Riley
web posted October 7, 2024
All people will agree that the world has changed much in the past 40 years. We have gained new technology, we have new countries, but we also have new forms of government and economic strategy. On July 17, 1987, Milton Friedman gave a speech titled "In Defense of Dumping," in which he talked about the harm of anti-dumping policies and the benefits of free trade in America. However, he fails to address the modern tactic of state-subsidized international dumping. After studying US Trade and Transportation Policy for debate over the past few years, I have come to the political stance that anti-dumping protection is necessary for our country in this time of economic war.
The description of a dumper is someone who sells something below cost. The main goal of dumping is to sell products at a very low cost so that consumers will only buy your product and everyone else will go out of business. Milton Friedman describes the benefits of dumping as: the person who buys something under cost is the person who is benefiting, and the one who sells it under cost is the one who is being taken advantage of. He also mentions sugar, where domestic producers are making money from the anti-dumping laws and harming consumers. He describes Japan's subsidization as a gift to the United States. In summary, Milton Friedman believes that dumping not only does not hurt us but rather benefits us.
There are a few problems with this stance, though. In our current time, there are countries that have the goal of harming the American economy. An example could be China, where they would love to destroy American markets, especially in the national defense sector. Some confirmed examples of where they have done this are: heavily subsidizing semiconductors, subsidizing steel and aluminum, and electric vehicle production. Or we could look at Nicaragua, where their president is chartering immigrants from all over the world to their country with the sole purpose of weaponizing illegal immigration against the United States. The world is now fighting wars with economics.
Countries recognize that a major war between world superpowers would result in no winner but rather two losers. Because of this fact and the policy of avoiding conflict, countries have resulted in attacking countries with money. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the Western World almost completely sanctioned Russia. There are numerous examples of weaponized economics. Dumping doesn't always have to be targeted, though. There are many instances of foreign markets decimating our own markets due to cheap slave or child labor. The only way we can keep a strong national economy in the future is to put tariffs on those products so that if we lose the ability to trade with those nations, then we still have a domestic market.
Protectionist policies are necessary, not because they are the best for our nation in the short term, but because they save our economy in the long run. Let's take our tariffs on Chinese semiconductors, for example. The United States Trade Representative determined that Chinese market practices were unfair and harmed US businesses. What this does is hurt our ability to create semiconductors by putting our producers out of business. China wants to do this because semiconductors run our country and our national defense. If we were to go to war and we had no domestic semiconductor market, then we would be at a great disadvantage. China can do this not because they have unlimited inventory but because they are subsidized and controlled by their government.
My friends and I used to trade football cards quite a bit.
I would make trade deals with my friends on a card they wanted. I had
one friend, though, that whenever I was making a deal, would come and
trade more or better cards than what I was offering. In this way, he
was able to get all the cards I wanted and then try trading them back
to me for more than what I originally offered. He was able to trade
more initially because his parents bought him way more cards than
anyone else could afford. This is very similar to real-world economic
dumping. I understand where Friedman comes from, yet I believe he does
not account for all of the reasons and ways a country might engage in
dumping. I think Milton Friedman is wrong in his stance that protectionist policies are bad. 
Jackson Riley is a high school student and this is his first contribution to Enter Stage Right. (c) 2024 Jackson Riley
