You have posted nothing but insults. Protectionist tariffs were very much American policy for over 200 years. Anti-trust laws and labor laws were also American policy since the civil war. Re factory overseas, fine, but American policy for over two hundres years was to protect American factories and American jobs. Have fun refuting that.
So, besides not being capable of spelling correcting, ignoring FR's spell check feature, not being able to write grammatically correct English, not being knowledgeable of any American history, ill educated in financial matters, you also are incapable of actually reading and comprehending others' replies. I see...it's all clear now.
I guessed my post about how Marshall Field made $600.00 per hour whilst his shop girls made $3.00 to $5.00 per WEEK is a figment of my imagination. And that the many FACTUAL posts, refuting you completely, on this thread, are also nonexistent. Well, bless my soul, perhaps you can only see what you want to see; is that it?
It was NEVER governmental policy, in this nation, to protect anyone's job, nor to "protect American factories"! That would be fascist...a word you love to throw around.
The last time protectionist tariffs ( you HAVE possibly heard of Smoot-Hawley, but if not, go look it up ), Americans were delved deeper into a full depression, which never should have lasted as long as it did. And FYI...there were more PANICS and CRASHES and DEPRESSIONS in this country's history, when protectionist tariffs were in place, then when there weren't. As a matter of historical fact, there have been NO PANICS, nor DEPRESSION, or even a major CRASH, since we got off the tariff route.
Your argument is based on this false premise: Because tariffs, anti-trust laws, and labor laws were used in American policy, they were American policy. This ignores the complexity of American policies.
One could just as easily assert that since America was not totally protectionist as a matter of US policy, then free trade was US policy.
The argument should be about which policy is best. Care to refute the principle that a larger market is more efficient in its allocation of resources, and is not therefore, a zero-sum game?