Comment: nopes.the point at issue was

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You didn't provide a link... (see in situ)

nopes.the point at issue was

nopes.

the point at issue was whether protectionism in america began with lincoln. more on that below.

bear in mind, i have not advocated protectionism at all in this series of discussions. i merely raised the issue of the possibility that some unique areas of high political importance might have implications beyond economics, and so there are cases where the political interest of protecting a national industry outweighs the economic benefit that springs from specialization through broadening division of labor.

obviously, our military hardware companies for example, or the top 20 primary dealers (financial firms/fed members) can't be under the legal and surveillance apparatus of another country. it doesn't matter what our political goals are per se - as long as we have independent nations that can potentially act against each others' interest, no independent country will allow certain essential industries to disappear or fall under foreign control.

any country with pretensions of independence needs to have independent industries in media, telecommunications, military hardware, among others. the point is more easy to see from the point of view of a small country, where potentially all of the communications go over servers and networks subject to unlimited surveillance by a foreign power with potentially hostile aims. but no matter how the point is couched, it seems not to impact your thinking, because of the ideological blinders. that's okay, we can let that be.

but back to the facts at dispute in terms of the history of protectionism in the US, which you seem to believe began with lincoln and the republicans.

the following passages are from bruce bartlett, a beltway libertarian economist writing for Cato, in favor of free trade and in critique of p j buchanans 1998 book on trade (The Great Betrayal).

The First Wave of Protectionism

...in 1816 Congress adopted an explicitly protectionist tariff, with a 25 percent rate on most textiles and rates as high as 30 percent on various manufactured goods. In 1824, protection was extended to goods manufactured from wool, iron, hemp, lead, and glass. Tariff rates on other products were raised as well.

That first wave of protectionism peaked in 1828...rates rose to nearly 49 percent. As early as 1832 Congress began to scale back tariffs with further reductions enacted the following year. In 1842, tariffs were again raised; but by 1846 they were moving downward, and further lowered in 1857. Following the 1857 act, tariffs averaged 20 percent.5

Following the Civil War, some tariff liberalization occurred, mainly assuming the form of exempting items from duties...
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-trad...

end quote

note that the article, whether well argued or not, is entirely opposed to any arguments in favor of any protection.

as a side note, the above information is a reminder of how unreliable a source wikipedia can be, despite its convenience. like yourself, the wiki author was unaware of the pre lincoln protectionist tariffs. mmaybe yall reads the same blogs.

but come now, lets shake hands and agree that between the two of us we outnumber our readers in these lengthy comment tunnels. if we dont call a quits at some point we can do this forever.

salve