What is so wrong with California using its leverage as America's largest state economy to protect the interests of its residents, just like China does?

It's just a thought experiment. I understand the US constitution vests the power to regulate interstate commerce with the Federal government.

Let me put it another way. If it would be advantageous for the US to erect trade barriers against Chinese exports, why would it not be advantageous for California to erect trade barriers against Mississippi, where average wages are dramatically lower, there are far fewer environmental regulations, etc.

> If it would be advantageous for the US to erect trade barriers against Chinese exports, why would it not be advantageous for California to erect trade barriers against Mississippi, where average wages are dramatically lower, there are far fewer environmental regulations, etc.

It would totally benefit California because they could do whatever they wanted and companies couldn't just up and move to Mississippi if things got too bad.

California (and all other states) consumers, on the other hand, would not benefit as prices would rise as a result of this protectionism.

Not really sure what the point of this red herring is but the theory of protectionism applies equally well at all levels from the mom and pop grocery store opposed to a new Walmart to continent sized economic blocks.

> Not really sure what the point of this red herring is but the theory of protectionism applies equally well at all levels from the mom and pop grocery store opposed to a new Walmart to continent sized economic blocks.

I agree that the effects would be largely the same. The point of the thought experiment is that protectionists never clamor for interstate trade barriers.

Almost universally, protectionists accept and even marvel at the US single market and interstate free trade, but they somehow lose sight of the benefits when trade becomes international.

> Almost universally, protectionists accept and even marvel at the US single market and interstate free trade, but they somehow lose sight of the benefits when trade becomes international.

I would say it's because the states have a generally level playing field due to federal laws/regulations while foreign countries can do whatever they want to reduce prices. It's not like Ohio can make child labor legal or something like that.

Though I will admit most protectionists aren't really known for their ability to construct a rational economic argument to support their position.

Yes? Why does the US have to fight in the global economy with one armed tied behind our back? And how are trade policy and China's human rights abuses in any way related?

My point is that just because one country is doing it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

Isolationism, and the concept of 'us vs. them' at a global level needs to die. Humans are a global species, and the longer it takes us to realize that the worse off we will be at trying to solve global problems, like economics.

That's a prisoner's dilemma. If you open up, and the other side doesn't reciprocate (and China doesn't, to put it VERY mildly), you will lose. A lot.

Also, if that happens, you have the worst of all possible worlds : the situation gets worse (more resources are more inequal), AND the party that tried to get it fixed is the one that loses the most resources. This, of course, will make any future attempt to fix inequality that much harder.

It's just not that simple.

You know, like in many things, there is a large spectrum between completely open markets and isolationism. Suggesting moving from one part of the spectrum to another doesn't mean a country is isolationist.