Jason, I don't think it's been a decade since the 'bottom' fell out on manufacturing employment. I will try to find a credible source and link, but I believe the U.S. has lost 3.3 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. As to your other comment, about consumer debt, and how that is a separate issue, I agree completely. It is a separate issue, and a very good issue about which much can be gleaned. As far as whether manufacturing jobs or high skill jobs warrant protection, that is a fascinating issue of debate. I believe most here can lay out many pros and cons of doing so, although I'm sure there'd be much disagreement about what the 'net balance' of doing so is. If you look at it from a historical perspective, countries that protected their domestic manufacturing base when their industrial development was in the embryonic stage (e.g. Japan, South Korea, China) have tended to fare well in later years, so long as they are able to continue to improve their processes, methods and efficiencies. An argument could be made that countries that have seen such industries deteriorate relative to past years and to foreign competition may warrant similar protection. It is a deconstructed argument.
I lived in NOLA for 5 years. The people you saw on tv were Morons without the sense God gave a Monkey. You could give all those fools a million bucks and they would blow it on dope and whiskey. John
I must sharply part ways with you here. You will find few propositions about which there is greater unanimity amongst professional economists than that of unfettered trade being good for all countries who participate. Manufacturing protectionism is just as bad if not worse than agricultural protectionism, the latter having lead to a ridiculous web of vote-buying policies that hurt our country and starve millions of people in lesser countries.
Ask those economists whether Japan would have ever have had a chance to develop an export driven industrial, high technology, or manufacturing base, had it not been for incredibly intense protectionism measures. If there is any concession that Japan may not have succeeded without such protectionist measures (a case I believe is more likely than not), it spills cold water on the entire premise that you claim is accepted as a near universal truth. At a practical level, where would Japan's economy and standard of living rest today had its government not kept its manufacturing base from being crushed by foreign giants, let alone able to export goods abroad, circa 1960, 1970s and even circa early 1980s? Economic theory and reality create sparks when they collide in the real world, rather than the sterile laboratory of ivory towers.
Sorry, I find the ivory-tower cry very tiresome. There are mountains of empirical evidence (aka "real world" data) that damn protectionism on just about every level. I assure you that just about every single economist that comes down on the side of free trade has considered the history of Japan and the Asian Tigers. You're not surprising them with your examples.
The point is not to 'surprise' them. And you completely evaded the question. In it's simplest form, it is this: Would Japan's economy, and specifically, its high tech and manufacturing base, be as strong as it is today, or would it even have ever been strong, in relative terms, had it not been for the interventionist protectionism the Japanese Government instituted from the post World War II era to, at minimum, the mid 80s (and arguably later than that)?
The question is misguided. Does protectionism serve to protect the industry on behalf of which the protectionism is incurred? Of course. So, the answer to your question is probably "no." Likewise, the American textile industry would not be as "strong" as it is today, were it not for our textile tariffs. However, as to the question of whether the citizens of Japan or the US as a whole would be better off absent protectionism, the answer is almost certainly "yes."
The American textile industry is incredibly weak. Clothing is designed here, but actual fabrication of clothing has mostly moved offshore. You are asserting that had it not been for 30 years of Japanese protectionism, Japan's economy and manufacturing base would be better off today than it is?
Japan's manufacturing base developed fortuitously during a period of time where the Asian tigers were non-existant swamps and China was in the midst of a disastrous period of anti-capitilsm. 30 years ago is roughly when the Japanese economy peaked with their lost of cost competitiveness to the Asian tigers. Now, you ask whether the Japanese manufacturing base would be better of without protectionism. Ask yourself what that protectionism has cost? Japan has the highest public debt-to-GDP ratio by far and away of all OECD nations. During that 30-year span, they have gone backwards in terms of international share of GDP, international influence and have had their standard of living deteriorate relative to the OECD. I still remember that during the late 80's everybody was plotting Japan's GDP growth trajectory, and marking the point in the future when they will overtake the USA, much in the same way people are doing the same with china today. So all protectionism has done is prolonged the macro adjustment of their manufacturing competitiveness.