this quite true, one can look after your own country's interests and trade globally.
In fact that's the only reason to trade globally (or at all).
What confuses people is that a countries interests (as in the entirety of the population) might not be in the interests of certain individuals or groups.
Take steel. If you are a steel producer, cheaper steel from abroad is not welcome.
If you are a steel consumer - not just making but buying and maintaining anything with steel in it (i.e. pretty much everyone who isn't employed in the steel producing industry) then cheaper steel from abroad is welcome as it reduces the cost (and price) of everything.
So although a few tens of thousand or even a hundred thousand jobs might go if you allow cheap imported steel, millions of people might be better off because their cars cost less, because their firm can make widgets cheaper and compete on the global market more effectively thus employing more people (some of whom might have been in the steel industry) and so on.
As you say, it's a careful balancing act. If you are a steel worker (or dependent o steel production) you would like your country to protect (tariffs and subsidies) steel but allow lumber, computers, clothes, cheese, beef, grain etc in so tou have a job but food, clothes, consumer goods etc are cheaper.
On the other hand if you were a farmer you'd want tariffs and subsidies on agricultural products but would like cheep steel so your machinery is cheaper etc.
So one reading of nationalism (as it trying to do the best by your country) would be to be as pro globalisation (increased trade) as possible because more trade means a better average standard of living (although it may go down for some segments) for your population.
Last edited:
