The Mao isolation was just a continuation of centuries of Ming isolation, and, emphatically, yes.
I think the GP meant modern protectionism in the sense of "Buy American/British/etc" movements.
I think the GP meant modern protectionism in the sense of "Buy American/British/etc" movements.
Aren't those modern "buy British" or "buy American" movements voluntary? Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction?
Most of the movements are voluntary for now, but not all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm...
> Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction?
Yes and no. But if the support takes the form of a bail-out, you're just wasting your money while delaying the inevitable and making the eventual crash much more painful. If you instead let industries fizzle out over time, it's much easier for something to appear to take it's place.
The original top-level article that this thread is about made what seemed to be a reasoned point at the end about the bailout of the auto-industry, and I am simply asking mseebach whether he disagrees with it, since he made reference to bailouts.
Why on earth would that get downvoted?