1. I'd like to ask
  2. 546 people in 177 cities are asking questions to 18 people
Answer

Question

Lord Mandelson, We keep being reminded by world leaders that the mistakes of protectionism will not be repeated, but everything governments around the world (including the UK) are doing in terms of trying to restore the credit mechanism and subsidising industries, relies on there being explicit or implicit limitations on who or where that money is lent and spent - i.e. domestically. Can you please explain why this is not protectionism?
Asked by PatNInterupt on Feb 17 2009 12:32:34 PM and supported by 25 members
MORE!

Answer

Theo Paphitis worded this question about "protectionsism" in his own way.
1 comment
PatNInterupt at Mar 16 2009 12:00:00 AM He either misses the point of the question (i.e. that protectionism is NOT just trade barriers like quotas and tariffs but can be overt or covert industry-subsidies, or tax and spend policies that have the intention of supporting domestic industries) OR he is being deliberately disingenuous and manipulative, using Labour voters' misunderstanding of economics as a tool to deceive. Personally, given his and this government's record, I'd go for the latter. I suppose this unelected bureaucrat also wants to tell people that the policies he is carrying out are not a form of economic fascism? "Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the 'national interest'—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it." http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html