All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 7, 2025 - Skeptoid
20:43
Skeptoid #970: Economic Nationalism: Bounty or Bust?

Economic nationalism, while attractive to many populists, is not the path to economic success some believe it to be. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Economic Nationalism: Bounty or Bust 00:10:13
Economic nationalism is a policy of erecting barriers to foreign markets and focusing on building domestic production.
Some believe this to be a way to strengthen your own economy and workforce.
Yet economists almost universally point to the many nations who have tried this nearly always with disastrous results.
Today we're going to find out if economic nationalism leads to bounty or to bust.
We're going to do that right now on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Economic Nationalism, Bounty or Bust.
Welcome to the show that separates fact from fiction, science from pseudoscience, real history from fake history, and helps us all make better life decisions by knowing what's real and what's not.
Skeptoid's wheelhouse is science versus pseudoscience.
So some of you might be asking, why are we talking about an issue of political policy?
We're not.
We're talking about a question rooted in science, economics.
Economics is very much a science, though there's always debate on whether it's a hard science or a soft science.
It's generally considered a soft science because it studies human behavior and societal interactions, which are harder to quantify and control, compared to, for example, chemistry.
Some argue that economics should still be considered a hard science due to its heavy dependence on mathematics, including calculus, statistics, probability, game theory, differential equations, and so on.
However, these remain difficult to apply.
You can mathematically develop all the predictive theories you want, but they're really hard to test by observing human behavior.
And so today, we're going to look at some hard examples of economic nationalism having been tried in three famous recent cases.
Was it a bounty for their economies or a bust?
The basic principle of economic nationalism compared to free market economics is that you voluntarily restrict yourself to only a domestic supply chain rather than to all international markets.
Rather than allowing domestic companies the freedom to buy low and sell high wherever they can find the best deals and create maximum value, the doctrine of economic nationalism dictates that they buy domestically only, which is unlikely to ever provide the best value.
In a nutshell, almost zero economists find the basic tools of economic nationalism, broad tariffs, import quotas, and the desire for economic self-sufficiency, to be wise economic strategies.
In almost every case when they've been tried, they've resulted in substantially more self-harm than good.
Yet today, many nations around the world are pursuing economic nationalism, not because of sound economic theory, but because of the rising tide of global populism.
Populism is the focus on ideas that are popular, regardless of how sound they may or may not be.
Populists are typically ordinary people who see experts and officials as elitists who are out of touch with their needs.
And populist leaders are typically those who take advantage of this, framing themselves as fighting the elitists on behalf of the people.
If an idea becomes popular among ordinary people, like curbing immigration, populist leaders will often promise to do it, whether it's a good idea or not.
One idea with populist roots is that of the tariff, a key tool of economic nationalism.
So let's take a moment to examine those.
Tariffs do have their uses.
Most nations employ modest tariffs to some degree.
Tariffs can balance trade deficits, stabilize international markets, and protect domestic industries and job security.
However, these are normal tariffs.
The tariffs favored by economic nationalists go far beyond that.
They're typically much higher and applied in a form of economic warfare against competitors or in retaliation for the same, generally wreaking havoc on trade balances and market stability.
The idea behind a tariff is to make it too expensive for domestic companies to buy from foreign suppliers, thus forcing them to buy domestically.
If a foreign country wants to sell you an import for $100 and your government imposes a 50% tariff on it, then you end up paying $150, $100 to the foreign seller, and $50 to the government.
Tariffs do three basic things.
They are often effective at slowing foreign competition.
They enrich your government at your expense, and they make it much harder for your industry to keep costs down.
This drives up the prices of domestic goods, and you end up with inflation.
To counter this inflation, interest rates are usually raised to slow the economic activity.
So, high prices, high interest rates.
These downsides to tariffs are why most nations consider them a last resort, usually reserved to defend against intense unfair foreign competition.
For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, when Japanese automakers and electronics companies dumped their products on the U.S. markets at below their own cost in an effort to kill off American manufacturers.
So if these kinds of tariffs end up having more harmful domestic economic consequences than positive, why are they such an easy sell to populists?
Why do some people irrationally cheer a policy that will probably leave them worse off?
The answer comes from behavioral economics, the most fundamental principle of which is that people would rather feel they've won, even if it costs them, than feel they've lost, even if they come out ahead.
This is precisely why tariffs are often presented in us versus them terms.
Sell people the idea they're winning by imposing tariffs against a foreign competitor, and they'll cheer without even noticing their own higher prices and interest rates.
That brings us to the meat of this episode.
Here are three examples of countries that implemented economic nationalism in recent years and suffered harmful internal economic consequences as a direct result.
Number one, Venezuela.
When the populist Hugo Chavez rose to power, he did so under a policy called Bolivarianism, named for Simón Bolívar, the hero of Venezuelan independence.
Chavez's platform was largely one of independence from American and Western influence, whom he blamed for all of Venezuela's problems.
His imposition of economic nationalism, which he named the Bolivarian Revolution, has been continued under his successor, Nicolas Maduro.
Venezuela nationalized their oil industry and redistributed its profits toward the nation's vast lower classes through subsidies, housing, and other social programs, intent on keeping their profits in Venezuela.
Chavez replaced experienced experts throughout government, and in particularly the oil industry executives, with political appointees to carry out his plans.
The negative impacts Venezuela suffered from all this became legendary and is impossible to summarize here, but it started when foreign capital and investment mostly fled the country, fearing the market unpredictability.
Mismanagement of the national oil company by Chavez's cronies caused production to plummet, leaving Chavez's domestic plans without funding.
Without foreign imports, the prices on domestic goods soared, discouraging production and left Venezuelans with widespread shortages of essential goods.
Domestic industries collapsed under the protectionist policies.
Chavez printed new money furiously to try and pay for all of this, which caused hyperinflation.
Penniless and literally starving, an estimated 8 million Venezuelans, a quarter of the population, have so far fled the country.
These policies were put into practice not because the country needed them.
They didn't.
Economists have written whole books on how flawed these policies were to begin with.
Chavez did it largely to consolidate his own political power by constructing an anti-imperialist narrative, mainly casting the United States as the villain and rallying the people into a fervor of anti-foreigner passion and to reassert Latin American sovereignty.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Spreading Truth in Uncertain Times 00:07:35
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding together.
Get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
Number two, Brexit.
Perhaps the most famous case of populist-driven economic nationalism in recent years is Brexit, the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union in 2020.
For 27 years, the UK's membership in the EU provided seamless access to the entire European market.
Exports were tariff-free.
Trade was streamlined.
There were no customs duties or controls between nations.
Trucks could just deliver the goods from one nation to another.
If you wanted to do business, there was no easier and more profitable way.
Democratic values and the rule of law are upheld within the EU, and the standard of living is higher from shared consumer protection, health care, and environmental standards.
Economically, membership in the EU is a no-brainer.
But membership also provides for unrestricted access to live, work, and study in any member nation.
And the UK is a pretty attractive place to live.
By the time of the referendum in 2016, over half a million non-citizens were immigrating to the UK each year.
Some British populists saw them as lawless, unwilling to adopt British culture, and a drain on national resources.
Many wanted stronger borders.
Also, many Britons felt the UK contributed too much to the EU without other nations ponying up their fair share.
Many saw EU officials as elitists who were out of touch with ordinary British people.
Overall, the voters who passed Brexit saw it as an issue of reclaiming control over their own laws, finances, and borders.
Leaving the EU was the ultimate act of nationalism.
The UK did indeed regain control over their ability to negotiate trade independently and to establish their own immigration rules.
They did so.
The result was that sectors like agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare suddenly faced severe labor shortages.
Britons wishing to travel internationally found it difficult and complicated.
Small businesses faced enormous new paperwork and customs delays.
Many had to give up doing business internationally, whether they were trying to import or export.
Processes that used to be seamless became unmanageable.
Even here at Skeptoid, for several years, we were forced to stop shipping USB drives and store merchandise to our members in the UK.
To comply, we would have had to set up a value-added tax account with the UK government and file quarterly returns, which were far too burdensome and expensive for our small team.
The result was predictable.
Soon after the referendum, polls have indicated that a growing majority of Britons feel leaving was the wrong choice.
And today, a plurality think they should rejoin, with just under 50% favoring rejoining and around 35% favoring staying out.
If they do rejoin, Brexit will have proven to be history's most wasteful experiment in populism-driven nationalism.
Economists estimate that by 2035, the UK will have 3 million fewer jobs, 32% lower investment, 5% lower exports, 16% lower imports, and be $311 billion worse off than if they had remained in the EU.
Number 3.
India Less well known to Americans is what India has been up to internally in the past decade.
With an initial goal of basically just boosting domestic production, India began introducing economic nationalism in the early 2010s.
They rallied the people with slogans such as make in India and self-reliant India, which resonates well with people who wrongly equate fewer imports with more domestic jobs.
India withdrew from a major Asian trade pact and other trade agreements and imposed steep tariffs across numerous categories.
Everything from consumer electronics to car parts to textiles to toys and even medical devices.
They created requirements for manufacturers to source materials domestically.
This was also sold to the public by framing the high trade barriers as a matter of national security.
Having local supply chains would provide strategic autonomy in the event of some world crisis.
It has not gone well.
A large part of the tariff strategy was to encourage foreign companies to build factories inside India.
But with all the protectionist policies and policy reversals, foreign companies have been mostly gun-shy and have been staying away.
Indian manufacturing depends a lot on imported components.
So as manufacturing costs have risen because of the tariffs, those higher costs have been passed on to Indian consumers.
Quality of products has gone down in many cases, as manufacturers have had to turn to cheaper sources.
India implemented these nationalist policies, but largely failed to make the domestic investments that would have been needed to help Indian companies and workers be more competitive.
Investments such as infrastructure, skill building, and research and development.
As a result, India's goal of having manufacturing make up 25% of their gross domestic product was missed widely.
Instead, it actually fell and hovers around 16% today.
From these three examples, we can learn at least one valuable lesson.
If any country's leaders are pitching economic nationalism as the path forward, when they're not already in a major economic crisis with no other options, their lawmakers would be well advised to ask the advice of economists or historians if they wish to learn whether their plans are grounded in some source other than data and economic theory.
Because that's the only place they should be.
Supporting Skeptoid with Premium Membership 00:02:50
We continue with one example of when economic nationalism was an appropriate and helpful strategy in the ad-free and extended premium feed.
To access it, become a supporter at skeptoid.com slash go premium.
A great big skeptoid shout out to our premium supporters, including Beth Juan, Eric Peterson, Dr. Stranger, plus Brett, and of utmost importance, his lad, Jared.
Remember, we always do our best to publish any corrections.
So if you find an error in any Skeptoid episode, come to skeptoid.com slash corrections to report it.
And if it checks out, I'll include it in an upcoming corrections episode.
Sustainability is a popular theme in science, and the support from these premium members is what pays the bills of our nonprofit and makes Skeptoid sustainable.
Please join them by becoming a member for just $5 a month or more at skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
Skeptoid is a production of Skeptoid Media.
Director of Operations and Tinfoil Hat Counter is Kathy Reitmeyer.
Marketing guru and Illuminati liaison is Jake Young.
Production management and all things audio by Will McCandless.
Music is by Lee Sanders.
Researched and written by me, Brian Dunning.
Listen to Skeptoid for free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or iHeart.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection