Comments on: Replacing Protectionism with “Informationism”

By: richinrichmond

richinrichmond — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:18:11 +0000

Careful that you JUST list domestic content and not content-by-country. Some countries could take the latter very personally.

By: melinda

melinda — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:02:15 +0000

People pay extra for product “features” all the time. Domestic content is simply a product “feature” and if someone wants to pay extra for that, let them.

Maybe some people think there isn’t value in buying American, but that is true for many product features, and no one is forcing them to do this. I for one am paying for many cable stations I never watch

By: bceconomist

bceconomist — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:27:04 +0000

Whether something is produced domestically is, IMHO, a totally legitimate factor to weigh in a purchase decision. I see no reason why we shouldn’t do this

By: mindyk

mindyk — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:09:57 +0000

I don’t think anybody has any idea what % of stuff is made abroad or domestically. rather than this being an “efficient market” already somehow, I think spending patterns would change overnight

By: alewis

alewis — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:23:29 +0000

good call. I changed the title per your suggestion

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:09:59 +0000

This is a very aggressive use of information. I wouldn’t call it protectionism. BUT it needs a name — “informationism.” Still, hard for anyone to oppose more disclosure.

Point about the Big Three is right-on. They would sink. I would definitely adjust my own spending patterns a little.

By: harvardeconomist

harvardeconomist — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:58:34 +0000

Interesting….I don’t know whether to characterize this as protectonist or not. It is also hard to argue with a “solution” which simply provides information. China would object since their projects are usually full of poisons, and China buys most of our debt these days. But there are a lot of worse ways to get people to buy American