[BonsaiDen]

It is actually the other way around. Internal producers simply cannot compete with external ones who can produce in multiple countries, in giant quantities at very low overhead cost and then sell reject goods for a very low price.

Africa has a big problem with this. Due to trade agreements, many European meat producers sell their "leftovers" into the African market at extremely low costs, which has lead to the demise of domestic producers of live stock. Which then resulted in a loss of jobs.

Yes, some people might be able to purchase things at a lower cost now, but some other people will loose their jobs and won't be able to purchase anything at all, which also negatively affects the domestic market.

For the outside producer is not a problem, they simply can move on. But kick starting a domestic market and bringing wages back up again will be huge issue for any government in the long run.

[gwright]

This is a common argument but it always seems to assume that the value of increased sales to specific group of producers is somehow more important than value of the competing goods to the disbursed group of consumers.

Specific groups of producers seem to always be able to influence government policies in their favor while the disbursed interests of everyone else get discounted.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking specifically about India, this phenomena is common everywhere.

[gherkin0]

There are more factors than just goods and sales though, like the independence and autonomy of the country/community, it's level of infrastructure, social development, etc. Local producers can help with those factors, while foreign producers dumping reject goods won't.