Case four

The four arguments that companies, industries, and governments use to legitimate protectionist policies are in actuality “protection against more efficient competitors.” (458) The protection is needed to keep from turning to foreign competition. The US imports a plethora of items because the competition cannot be beat. It is difficult to compete when workers in different countries are being paid “less than a quarter of the U.S. minimum wage of $7.25.”(461) Foreign countries are able to produce more efficiently in a way that uses very low costs compared to if it were produced here in the US.

The first argument is the National Security argument. This argument for protection is necessary in that if the US could no longer import and rely on other countries for things such as “aircraft, ordnance and nuclear submarines,” (460) then the defense industries in the US would need to produce these items; therefore needing protection. With this argument, it is very valid in situations that could arise in times of war and being cut off from foreign countries. If too many US industries counted on foreign suppliers for items and then we were suddenly cut off, the US would need to start producing those items which would be difficult due to them once being produced in very low wage paying countries. Like Slavin questions, foreign imports could make the US vulnerable at a time of war because then how would these defense items be efficiently produced? This argument is about US security and how it is to be maintained if imports from foreign countries went awry.

The second argument is the infant industry argument. This argument is for protection of companies that are not as efficient as its competitors in the same industry and are small in that fiel...

... middle of paper ...

...ompetition need either the government, their employers, or the federal government to get them on their feet again. They need to be “retrained and possibly relocated” (461) so that they can work in an efficient industry where their jobs aren’t being competed for.

Over all, these four arguments depict what it means to be observant to competition very close to home; though in foreign countries. These “special interest groups for protection against more efficient competitors” (458) understand how ruthless foreign competitors are and how important it is to guard these four elements. Without this protection US would not produce efficiently, and industries would have a hard time in becoming and staying in business. National security, infant industries, low wage, and employment are all components in the US that need protection against an ever changing and competing world.