Yes i am barking those that are in support to see her country is dependless, despite the situation challenges found itselves. Even though it is mandatory to import and exports exchange of good and services for the enhancement and development to achieved a higher goals for all nations.

<h2>The National Interest Argument</h2>
<p>Some argue that a nation should not depend too heavily on other countries for supplies of certain key products, such as oil, or for special materials or technologies that might have national security applications. On closer consideration, this argument for protectionism proves rather weak.</p>
<p>As an example, in the United States, oil provides about 40% of all the energy and 32% of the oil used in the United States economy is imported. Several times in the last few decades, when disruptions in the Middle East have shifted the supply curve of oil back to the left and sharply raised the price, the effects have been felt across the United States economy. This is not, however, a very convincing argument for restricting imports of oil. If the United States needs to be protected from a possible cutoff of foreign oil, then a more reasonable strategy would be to import 100% of the petroleum supply now, and save U.S. domestic oil resources for when or if the foreign supply is cut off. It might also be useful to import extra oil and put it into a stockpile for use in an emergency, as the United States government did by starting a Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1977. Moreover, it may be necessary to discourage people from using oil, and to start a high-powered program to seek out alternatives to oil. A straightforward way to do this would be to raise taxes on oil. What’s more, it makes no sense to argue that because oil is highly important to the United States economy, then the United States should shut out oil imports and use up its domestic supplies of oil more quickly. U.S. domestic production of oil is increasing. Shale oil is adding to domestic supply using fracking extraction techniques.</p>
<p>Whether or not to limit certain kinds of imports of key technologies or materials that might be important to national security and weapons systems is a slightly different issue. If weapons’ builders are not confident that they can continue to obtain a key product in wartime, they might decide to avoid designing weapons that use this key product, or they can go ahead and design the weapons and stockpile enough of the key high-tech components or materials to last through an armed conflict. Indeed, there is a U.S. Defense National Stockpile Center that has built up reserves of many materials, from aluminum oxides, antimony, and bauxite to tungsten, vegetable tannin extracts, and zinc (although many of these stockpiles have been reduced and sold in recent years). Think every country is pro-trade? How about the U.S.? The following section might surprise you.</p>
<div class="ns-school-defn2">
<header>
<h3 data-type="title">How does the United States really feel about expanding trade?</h3>
</header>
<p>How do people around the world feel about expanding trade between nations? In summer 2007, the Pew Foundation surveyed 45,000 people in 47 countries. One of the questions asked about opinions on growing trade ties between countries. The table below shows the percentages who answered either “very good” or “somewhat good” for some of countries surveyed.</p>
<p>For those who think of the United States as the world’s leading supporter of expanding trade, the survey results may be perplexing. When adding up the shares of those who say that growing trade ties between countries is “very good” or “somewhat good,” Americans had the least favorable attitude toward increasing globalization, while the Chinese and South Africans ranked highest. In fact, among the 47 countries surveyed, the United States ranked by far the lowest on this measure, followed by Egypt, Italy, and Argentina.</p>
<div>
<p><strong>The Status of Growing Trade Ties between Countries (<a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/files/pdf/258.pdf">Source</a>)</strong></p>
<table id="" summary="The table shows how people perceive the growing trade ties between countries. Column 1 lists the countries. Column 2 lists the percentage of people who view the growing trade status as “very good.” Column 3 lists the percentage of people who view the growing trade status as “somewhat good.” Column 4 combines column 2 and column 3 to show the total percentage of people who view the growing trade status as being positive. China = 38% very good; 53% somewhat good; 91% total. South Africa = 42% very good; 43% somewhat good; 87% total. South Korea = 24% very good; 62% somewhat good; 86% total. Germany = 30% very good; 55% somewhat good; 85% total. Canada = 29% very good; 53% somewhat good; 82% total. United Kingdom = 28% very good; 50% somewhat good; 78% total. Mexico = 22% very good; 55% somewhat good; 77% total. Brazil = 13% very good; 59% somewhat good; 72% total. Japan = 17% very good; 55% somewhat good; 72% total. United States = 14% very good; 45% somewhat good; 59% total.">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Country</th>
<th>Very Good</th>
<th>Somewhat Good</th>
<th>Total</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>China</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>53%</td>
<td>91%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>South Africa</td>
<td>42%</td>
<td>43%</td>
<td>87%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>South Korea</td>
<td>24%</td>
<td>62%</td>
<td>86%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Germany</td>
<td>30%</td>
<td>55%</td>
<td>85%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Canada</td>
<td>29%</td>
<td>53%</td>
<td>82%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>United Kingdom</td>
<td>28%</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>78%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mexico</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>55%</td>
<td>77%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Brazil</td>
<td>13%</td>
<td>59%</td>
<td>72%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Japan</td>
<td>17%</td>
<td>55%</td>
<td>72%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>United States</td>
<td>14%</td>
<td>45%</td>
<td>59%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<p>One final reason why economists often treat the <strong>national interest argument</strong> skeptically is that almost any product can be touted by lobbyists and politicians as vital to national security. In 1954, the United States became worried that it was importing half of the wool required for military uniforms, so it declared wool and mohair to be “strategic materials” and began to give subsidies to wool and mohair farmers. Although wool was removed from the official list of “strategic” materials in 1960, the subsidies for mohair continued for almost 40 years until they were repealed in 1993, and then were reinstated in 2002. All too often, the national interest argument has become an excuse for handing out the indirect subsidy of protectionism to certain industries or companies. After all, decisions about what constitutes a key strategic material are made by politicians, not nonpartisan analysts.</p>

3174eb1e-1f1a-441e-ab1c-3ea3bb79e46a

The National Interest Argument

Economics studies social behavior guiding the allocation of scarce resources to meet the unlimited needs and desires of the individual members of a given society, and for the production of goods and services, growth of production and welfare over time, and a great variety of other complex issues of vital concern to society. 

Economics

Discover the impacts of globalization and protectionism on consumers and producers, analyze the demand and supply of protectionism, and learn about the arguments for and against trade policies, regional agreements, and their long-term trends and tradeoffs.


The National Interest Argument

Track Your Learning Progress

Earlier discussion