politics

IMF's Lagarde warns of protectionism in Asia

18 Comments
By Leika Kihara and Takashi Umekawa

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

Go to hell IMF, every one of you rich western countries became rich because of protectionism. England, then France, Germany, then the US, Japan, South Korea, now China! Every single one! You think China can have Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent, if Amazon, Google, Facebook were let loose in China ? No way! You don't pit a baby with Usain Bolt in a race do you ?

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Lagarde said trade deals must be "rules based"...

Abe doesn't think so, he said it should "value" based.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

All that high tech stuff everyone uses is made from materials and technologies from all around the world. Say goodbye to it if the world turns protectionist.

@Kibousha Rich western countries became rich 100 years ago with something called Imperialism. Modern economies are just variations on that system.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@kibousha, if I understand you correctly, are you saying China should be allowed to kick out global technology companies in order to develop its own homegrown alternatives? If so, would you agree that popular Chinese goods should face equally restrictive tariffs and barriers to entry in the west?

I'm also not a fan of the IMF and especially the WTO, but the reason I dislike them is because they make it illegal to link trade policy with our wider political objectives. This only hurts the economically prosperous countries in the west and benefits bad actors who can hide behind WTO rules. For example, we are no longer allowed to say to China: 'improve your human rights record and demilitarise the South China Sea or else we will impose a 100% tariff on all of your most popular exports'.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

isnt this the moronic organization that every year states Japan needs to raise taxes? And now Asian market protectionism? Really? since like 1970.

What a worthless organization

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Japanese economy is built on protectionism, or non-tariff barriers as it were. If Japan was 'very open, and based on free and fair movement of goods and services' as Ms.Lagarde says, then the majority of companies here would go bankrupt tomorrow. Would any Japanese politician or bureaucrat ever let that happen?

we are no longer allowed to say to China: 'improve your human rights record and demilitarise the South China Sea or else we will impose a 100% tariff on all of your most popular exports'.

In which case the Chinese might reply, "improve your own human rights record, dismantle your global torture network, stop sponsoring terrorism, stop your wars and invasions, stop your mass global surveillance, stop your fomenting social unrest in countries which seek to control their own natural resources or we will ask for our money back."

4 ( +7 / -3 )

One step out of gaol Lagarde is hardly the person to give financial advice to anyone...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I’m pretty sure the more egregious protectionists are the US and EU..

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Quote: Lagarde said that while protectionism had not so far been seen "other than in words."

Wake up Lagarde! Other than words! Who are you talking to? It is best that you talk to those that suffer because of protectionism.

Why does the US have such large trade deficits with East Asia. Think about it.

If you want to know about protectionism other than words, then talk to me and I will educate you about unfair trade that is loaded with hidden protectionism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I’m pretty sure the more egregious protectionists are the US and EU..

Why the EU, dcog? The EU is already a 'club' of nations who have agreed to remove all trade barriers (goods, capital, workers etc) with each other. In fact, individually these countries are the opposite of 'protectionists' as they are the only ones in this world who have created/formed a 'proper' single market. The US, Japan, Oz, Canada etc are all opting for some sort of regional trade agreements but are nowhere near EU's single market format with free movement of goods, ppl etc. That they (the EU) want to protect their brand and own 'club' vs single, more protectionist nations (which is fair enough) is imo a different issue. Comparing the EU (a group of nations) to the us, oz, japan etc is unfair.

It's therefore pretty understandable that Lagarde, a European, feels that all nations outside the EU are to some extent, 'more' protectionists than nations within the EU. I reckon she has a valid point here.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Christine Lagarde appeared in court in Paris on Monday, on trial for negligence over a fraudulent €405m payout the French state made to a controversial businessman when she was finance minister.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Protectionism has been here for a long time, and is only getting worse. Perhapst that's what she's referring to. Last time I tried to send tea home as a gift for a friend and was honest about it on the claim form, it was kept at customs, and likewise when friends send stuff it's always been opened and some things taken out, if not the whole package kept. You used to be able to order books and certain items on different countries' Amazon sites when it came into being, but now even try it and when you get to the confirm screen you're rejected because you need to use Amazon Japan (if you even make it to that screen). Video games, movies, CDs, DVDs, have long since been stopped, and now books and most other goods unless you order them through Amazon Japan, paying up to 900% the cost in some cases, depending on the product. That's but one example, on a day-to-day level. Japan scuttling the TPP because it couldn't get what it want, then holding side talks with Brexiting England to ensure that IT is not hurt in future trade, as well as trying to restart the TPP with their original demands are a much larger example.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Can only get rid of protectionism in a world where the rules are enforced without fear or favour and not gamed, especially by powerful countries. Its pretty obvious the WTO is a toothless tiger. Only have to look at China's actions for the last couple decades to see that. About the E.U, right now they are strongly considering measures to protect certain European companies and industries from Chinese acquisition/technology transfer, because they realise the importance of Europe maintaining these companies for their future prosperity. Isn't that a form or protectionism? Smart, it definitely is, but still protectionist. You also have situations in which entire industries are bankrolled by the state, like the U.S and its defence industry, which has helped make Lockheed etc, super strong. Is that an unofficial state subsidy?

Any country that doesn't protect and foster essential skills and industries by keeping out unfair competition, particularly in the early days of growing an industry is really doing there country a massive disservice long term. Where would Japan be if it didn't protect its industries in their early days post WW2? Now Japan is a world leader in the automobile industry for instance.

Lagarde lives in a dream world.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Every country acts in its own self interest.

You don't need rules. The market makes the rules that either a product or service has enough value to sell X quantity in Y country that has Z tariffs.

If a country's wants to protect its farmers or an industry, so be it.

The goal of the IMF is rig the system in favor of rich countries by structuring loans to keep poor countries subservient to rich countries.

Here is money only to use to make this infrastructure to build low value, labor intensive parts by poor people that we need to make high-value products.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Overpaid technocrat protecting her job?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@M3M3M3, Chinese goods should face restrictions if those goods are destined to Africa or countries with less development than China, countries who want to develop its industry. Western countries are already rich, do they want to continue competing with China to make useless plastic craps ? I sure hope they don't.

A country should protect its industry at all cost until it's ready to compete globally, akin to a parent who protects an nurture her child until adulthood before plunging her into the real world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know why the humanitarian UN has institutions like IMF and World bank, they just loan in their own-method packages ignoring the country policies and getting profits with high-interests according to the G7 financial implementation--Just unfair things come to my head, lacks governance structure to be part of the humanitarian UN.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

trade is a War, those who follow the rules always lose

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites