Justin Trudeau Quotes

A form of protectionism should be enforced at national level, at least on strategic areas such as agriculture.

Rich country protectionism - barriers, subsidies and support - mean that the world supply of agricultural goods is artificially increased and world prices depressed.

The problem is you cannot have free global trade with highly restrictive, regulated domestic markets.

When it comes to agriculture, there's no such thing as a free market.

Protection to American Industry

We will seek to eliminate scandalous agricultural subsidies which developed nations have that harms our own agriculture.

The arguments of the protectionists in favor of creating home markets by protecting duties, operating to exclude the taxed foreign commodities, if addressed to the manufacturing and bountied States, would be impregnable. For these States pay but a small proportion of the costs, and enjoy nearly all the benefits of the home markets so created

Sugar protectionism is government planning, It is industrial policy—government picking winners and losers—applied to agriculture.

It is hard for me to understand why we tolerate so many barriers to agriculture trade when America is the No. 1 producer of agriculture products. I think opening up markets - more markets for agricultural sales is a very high priority for us.

In almost every case, whenever a tariff or quota is imposed on imports, that tax is strongly supported by the domestic industry getting the protective shield from lower-priced foreign competition. The sugar industry supports sugar tariffs; textile mills lobby for tariffs on foreign clothing.

Most states, for all their rhetoric in favour of free trade, are adept at trying to manipulate markets to protect and advantage their own producers.

The United States can't keep a completely open system if the rest of the world is less open. The United States may have to take a leaf out of the book of Japan, China, and Germany, and have protectionism inside the system.

Basically, the myth is that America has been founded on the free market; the government has done very little; it has thrived under free trade. But actually, if you look at the history, this is actually the country that has succeeded most with protectionist policies.

Agriculture is a business that has been up to its bib overalls in politics since the first Thanksgiving dinner kickback to the Indians for subsidizing Pilgrim maize production with fish head fertilizer grants.

While foreign competitors, French or Japanese or German, merrily bid for contracts abroad, American companies find themselves tangled in a web of legislation designed to express disapproval, block trade in certain commodities, or perhaps deny resources to disfavored or hostile regimes.

Yes, agriculture subsidies are far too generous. They need to be reined in because they cater to special interests while distorting free market competition. Yes, the farm laws are an anachronistic mess.

We don't pay truckers not to truck, we don't pay miners not to mine and we shouldn't pay farmers not to farm.

[Defending agricultural subsidies:] France is the world's second-biggest exporter of agriculture products, and it must remain so.

I never was a free-trader. I never felt that we could ... do away with all protective devices, because we would have been flooded with imports which would have hurt our economy.

Unfair foreign trade practices are not isolated acts.

I believe the Japanese set ceilings on what they will buy from foreign companies.

While protectionism doesn’t work, pure free trade doesn’t work either.

Petitions poured in upon Congress urging the imposition of discriminating duties that should encourage the production of needed things at home.

For the past quarter of a century, the predominant idea, which has successfully asserted itself at the polls and shaped the course of the government, has been to preserve the home market for the home industries. The employer and the workman have alike been taught to look at the various economical measures proposed from this point of view, to regard with hostility any step favoring the intrusion of the foreign producer upon their own domain, and rather to demand increasingly rigorous measures of exclusion than to acquiesce in any loosening of the chain that binds the consumer to them.

Are we going to take the hands of the federal government completely off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old principle that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything he wants, raise anything, any old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants?