Amazon.com Widgets

Does a government have the duty to protect its citizens from foreign competition and loss?

  • The government is required to protect the rights of average citizen

    The Interests of big business seem to prevail, this not what the framers wanted. If we let this go on, then government and the economy will fail. If big business will not hire the American worker then in turn will not pay taxes, who will be able to pay them. With many out of work, the average American cannot pay taxes. If the average American has no money who will buy the goods and services being offered by these business. With jobs, sent to other counties then maybe these companies should be paying the taxes that others cannot pay. The poor have taxation without representation, while the wealthy have representation without taxation. Government has breached its duty taking money from the high paying interest groups (the minority) and not doing what is best for the nation as a whole.

  • Yes, I believe government has a right to protect its citizens from foreign competition and loss.

    Foreigner shouldn't be able to come in and prosper of an idea that is already vaguely used in someone else's product or business. Our market would be filled with look alike and it would be like cheap knock offs. I feel like its just not against foreigners but also other citizens who look for the easiest way to get big.

  • Yes. I believe that the government has the duty to protect the citizens from foreign competition.

    Yes the government has the duty to protect citizens from foreign competition and loss. If all the businesses in the country are owned by foreigners what future or success will the citizens of the country have? I believe that foreigners can't just come into the country and we the citizens are at a loss and they are gaining. If the citizens of the country are at a loss what will happen to the economy of the country? Sometimes the foreigners don't employ citizens of the country but employ people from their country and that's where the problem is. I believe that the government of any country should not allow this to happen.

  • It is the government's duty to ensure that the country stays ahead of others.

    It is the government's duty to ensure that the country stays ahead of others, or on an equal playing field. Not only is it in the interest of its citizens, it is also in the interest of the country and it's economy. Protecting citizens from foreign competition and loss not only helps the individual citizens, but also the country, as a whole.

    Posted by: AverageHoward86
  • Yes they do, because we support and pay them to do so, and they need to protect our every interest to keep our country prosperous and flourishing.

    Every day we send jobs out of the country and take away valuable jobs needlessly. If there is any more competition, we will lose what little this country has left, which is not much.

    Posted by: RabidSean44
  • A government's first duty should be to its people and it, therefore, has a duty to protect its economic interests from foreign competition and loss.

    A government should put the interests of its nation first. This includes economics, which means the government has a duty to protect its citizens from foreign competition and loss. A government who fails to do so will find its country victim to other countries where governments do put their interests first.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • Since we depend on our economy to survive the government does have a duty to protect citizens from foreign competition and loss.

    The government does have a duty to protect its citizens from foreign competition and loss. We as a nation are dependent on our economy to survive so the government does have a duty legally or at least morally to defend our economy. Without a good economy our country will shrivel and die and become dependent on other nations. Therefore, if our nation wants to survive there are certain measures that have to be taken.

    Posted by: w00tboycomic
  • The U. S. government should enforce all rules possible to protect the interest of this country.

    I believe the U. S. government should do all things possible to protect its country and citizens from foreign competition, both in the form of business and citizenship. This starts with ensuring that major businesses and corporations retain at least 75% of its operations in the United States, including manufacturing and distribution of products and services. This will help keep Americans employed, and the economy stable, hindering the ability of foreign competition.

    Posted by: Quibarce
  • Our government should actively protect citizens in every area, even in the job market.

    While I do not think that the government can fully control the way that US businesses choose to outsource work or where companies can get their raw materials from, I think the government should have some way to help citizens from being outsourced out of jobs. Probably the best solution would be tax breaks or incentives to US businesses, that would make it more appealing for them to keep more of their business in the United States.

    Posted by: lachercheuse
  • I believe governments must protect their citizens from foreign competition and loss to ensure viable job opportunities within their borders.

    Governments of countries routinely face business competition on many fronts, and without intervention they could lose many of their jobs overseas. While many might argue that allowing the free market system to work ensures the greatest efficiency, that ignores the need for a country to keep their people employed. Additionally, those employed in areas that concern national security can not have their jobs lost to foreign competition entirely and that can range from the transportation to the food to the medical sectors. Governments are elected to serve and protect, and the end game of allowing jobs to migrate overseas is allowing your country to fed, clothed, transported and protected by others. Not much of a country is it?

    Posted by: TenEst
  • The U.S government has no place in a true, free, capitalistic market.

    The problem in the U.S is: we are not a true capitalistic free market. This is due to Corporate lobbied intrusion. U.S and foreign companies have lobbied out competition. In a true free market I could open Mc Doogles next to McDonalds with out fear of being sued for copyright infringement. The government has been lobbied to only produce and grant certain numbers of permits in certain business limiting competition. Many markets are mandated forcing citizens to purchase inferior products(Insurances good example)
    If corporate America truly had to fear losing profit to foreign competition they might make better decisions concerning U.S markets. If U.S citizens do not have the money to purchase U.S company goods they may provide better paying jobs and work conditions.
    But, the U.S constitution was written by fifty wealthy white men to protect their assets. It excluded nearly two thirds of the population. So why should we expect any less from today's Government?

  • Competition is a point of view

    Competition, rivalry, and hostility are products of a point of view that sees human beings as struggling for a piece of the slice of pie that is life, instead of working together to reach it together. Countries should work together to take down internal barriers and specialize so that the human effort of many nations can mutually support each other rather than tear each other down.

  • Trying to protect local businesses from foreign competition will invite retaliation from those countries, and it will result in slower worldwide trade.

    One of the consequences of the protection tariffs set up in the United States against foreign competitors was the other countries retaliated with tariffs on American goods being exported there. This caused a worldwide slowdown of trade and prolonged the Great Depression. Trying to protect companies from foreign competition is never ultimately beneficial.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • I believe the government should not protect companies from foreign competition, as this is what helps keep prices low.

    The market needs to be allowed to function on its own. If the government gets involved, then this will result in higher prices. Foreign competition is good for the economy. It stimulates domestic companies to be more efficient, while maintaining lower prices to stay competitive. It also leads them to increase quality to compete. This is the benefit of competition to the consumer.

    Posted by: InnateCarrol
  • No, because to restrict competition would be to create more problems than good.

    When a government restricts free trade in order to prevent competition, whether it is from within or without, it creates a monopoly-type situation which cannot be beneficial for anyone. This creates a communist-style financial situation, where the government is controlling all prices, restricting all trade, and the economy will eventually collapse.

    Posted by: C0nrKentros
  • I oppose the government protecting citizens from foreign competition because if the government does, citizens will just become lazy.

    The US is a free market economy and a capitalist country. If the government protects citizens too much, citizens will become lazy and uncompetitive. For instance, before Japanese cars entered the US market, American car makers were producing inefficient cars and were not interested in product innovation. Because of having to deal with Japanese cars later on, US car manufacturers became more diligent in product improvement. Therefore foreign competition is a good thing.

    Posted by: FeIBuddy
  • The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens' welfare and promote their access to opportunity; the issue of foreign competition is peripheral.

    Changes in the economy that hurt particular industries and categories of workers can occur because of capital's opportunity to obtain cheaper labor abroad, but they may also occur because of domestic competition and technological change--the need for government action to promote social welfare remains the same. To frame the issue as one of protection from foreign competition predisposes one to protectionist policies that should be embraced only with caution, since free trade facilitates economic growth broadly over time. Even when such measures are used, they should be thought of as a way to rein in the power of corporations, not to oppose foreign workers' access to increased opportunity. The distinction is subtle but important, because it emphasizes the costs of interfering with trade. Government investment, jobs, training, and social services are a better first response to economic instability than to limit trade.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • No, the government has the duty to protect its citizens from physical harm but not from foreign competition.

    More and more we are seeing that it's a global economy. To compete in a global economy it is very short-sighted for a government to try to protect citizens from foreign competition and loss. To do so would be to hurt us in the long run because competition is only going to serve to make us stronger.

    Posted by: JeffP4ri5
  • Government have the duty to protect its citizens from foreign competition and loss but in more larger context.

    I agree that the government does have the duty to protect its citizen from foreign competition and loss but in more larger context but in the broader way that can happen only when there is free trade liberalization. When there is free trade within the country, there will be free flow of goods and services. This will be more beneficial for citizens and states of the country.

    Posted by: I0rFashion
  • Governments should promote and protect its citizens from foreign competition and loss. It is the duty of government to protect its citizens and to promote the best interest of all of its citizens.

    It is in the best interests of citizens to be successful in business; this benefits the country and the citizens. The government has a duty to protect the best interests of its citizens even in business ventures. Although there is a fine line which should be observed, the government should protect the business interests of its citizens through tax and tariff policies. While some foreign competition is good, if a product is available locally, there should be incentives (price) for the citizens to purchase the local product.

    Posted by: 5kyErto

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.