|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
That's not an argument for the free market. Someone who argues for a free market would be against subsidies. They're hugely damaging sometimes more than tariffs.
|
On April 06 2017 15:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 08:14 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 07:39 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters.
I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous. Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive. Yes, uncompetitive with China and India. If you want your economy to be efficient and to improve your quality of life then you don't force your consumers to pay more for their goods while channelling your own workforce into an industry in which they are not productive. It's fine in the short term, but the longer you take to find a world competitive niche of your own, the longer you pay the price of your protectionism. Agriculture is exceptional. Every developed country subsidises its agriculture. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to impose tariffs as well, though. You can subsidise your own agriculture and people who care about locally sourced food will pay a premium for it while people who can't afford that luxury will benefit from no tariffs on food from elsewhere. Oh please, so subsiding is Ok but tariffs are bad? Socialism to keep local food somewhat competitive is good but keeping other goods cheap is bad? These conservative arguments for the free markets never cease to amaze. It's as if you guys didn't believe in any of the stuff you are saying yourself.
I hate subsidies for food export, lots of poor counrties can't compete with American and European heavily subsidised products It's immoral.
|
Tariffs are idiotic when used as an easy way to extract foreign currency for the government or to squeeze some more from own citizens (see Argentina), but are terribly needed as a policy tool. In this respect, they are terribly low as a result of populistic "we cant make things expensive for voters". All the things we so enjoy from China and around, including all the devices used for this very discussion, are so cheap because the country of origin doesnt care for our standarts of treating people and enviroment. Thats how they are so "competitive". Any such country and industry should be subject to tariffs so high to cover that gap, or we should start employimg children for 12 hours a day and dumping heavy metals into rivers. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
|
On April 06 2017 16:31 opisska wrote:
Tariffs are idiotic when used as an easy way to extract foreign currency for the government or to squeeze some more from own citizens (see Argentina), but are terribly needed as a policy tool. In this respect, they are terribly low as a result of populistic "we cant make things expensive for voters". All the things we so enjoy from China and around, including all the devices used for this very discussion, are so cheap because the country of origin doesnt care for our standarts of treating people and enviroment. Thats how they are so "competitive". Any such country and industry should be subject to tariffs so high to cover that gap, or we should start employimg children for 12 hours a day and dumping heavy metals into rivers. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
Two things: the manufacturing wages in Shenzhen right now might just be higher than those in Poland. If not in absolute terms then certainly in PPP; China's competitive advantage in tech manufacturing comes from huge scale economies and a highly flexible workforce. Lower environmental standards are a very small part of the story right now. Bymaking them adhere to EU standards for imported goods, like RoHS for instance, you are in a way minimizing the problem further.
|
On April 06 2017 16:31 opisska wrote:
Tariffs are idiotic when used as an easy way to extract foreign currency for the government or to squeeze some more from own citizens (see Argentina), but are terribly needed as a policy tool. In this respect, they are terribly low as a result of populistic "we cant make things expensive for voters". All the things we so enjoy from China and around, including all the devices used for this very discussion, are so cheap because the country of origin doesnt care for our standarts of treating people and enviroment. Thats how they are so "competitive". Any such country and industry should be subject to tariffs so high to cover that gap, or we should start employimg children for 12 hours a day and dumping heavy metals into rivers. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
You missunderstand, we should just specialize in some field and hope that china keeps producing for us forever. Because who in their right mind would ever risk mutual benefitial trade and economical networks for political reasons?
|
|
|
On April 06 2017 16:31 opisska wrote:
Tariffs are idiotic when used as an easy way to extract foreign currency for the government or to squeeze some more from own citizens (see Argentina), but are terribly needed as a policy tool. In this respect, they are terribly low as a result of populistic "we cant make things expensive for voters". All the things we so enjoy from China and around, including all the devices used for this very discussion, are so cheap because the country of origin doesnt care for our standarts of treating people and enviroment. Thats how they are so "competitive". Any such country and industry should be subject to tariffs so high to cover that gap, or we should start employimg children for 12 hours a day and dumping heavy metals into rivers. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
Partly true yes but most of their advantage simply comes from lower labour costs. It's why a lot of low end manufacturing (like clothing) has already moved away from China to cheaper locations.
|
On April 06 2017 16:31 opisska wrote:
Tariffs are idiotic when used as an easy way to extract foreign currency for the government or to squeeze some more from own citizens (see Argentina), but are terribly needed as a policy tool. In this respect, they are terribly low as a result of populistic "we cant make things expensive for voters". All the things we so enjoy from China and around, including all the devices used for this very discussion, are so cheap because the country of origin doesnt care for our standarts of treating people and enviroment. Thats how they are so "competitive". Any such country and industry should be subject to tariffs so high to cover that gap, or we should start employimg children for 12 hours a day and dumping heavy metals into rivers. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
China has already started to slow down its growth in order to improve their environment. They could absolutely maintain their 10+% growth but the side effects are kicking in right now, they lose more than one million people every year due to pollution and the population is asking for change. Of course it will take some time to get out of coal but China has taken the lead for renewable energy now that the US has stepped down with Trump election and the EU can't force anything on a global scale. China is alreaedy the first investor in renewable energy.
|
China is in renewables becuase they see massive growth potential in it. For the most part environmental improvements are centred around cities as the Chinese elite realise that actually it would be nice to be able to walk around breathing fresh air and drink tap water. It's actually quite bizarre to live your life inside Beijing never coming into contact with fresh air for a few seconds. From apartment, to car, to office, to shopping complex; a life of recycled air con.
|
On April 06 2017 15:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 08:14 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 07:39 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters.
I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous. Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive. Yes, uncompetitive with China and India. If you want your economy to be efficient and to improve your quality of life then you don't force your consumers to pay more for their goods while channelling your own workforce into an industry in which they are not productive. It's fine in the short term, but the longer you take to find a world competitive niche of your own, the longer you pay the price of your protectionism. Agriculture is exceptional. Every developed country subsidises its agriculture. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to impose tariffs as well, though. You can subsidise your own agriculture and people who care about locally sourced food will pay a premium for it while people who can't afford that luxury will benefit from no tariffs on food from elsewhere. Oh please, so subsiding is Ok but tariffs are bad? Socialism to keep local food somewhat competitive is good but keeping other goods cheap is bad? These conservative arguments for the free markets never cease to amaze. It's as if you guys didn't believe in any of the stuff you are saying yourself.
I'm guessing you missed the part where I said that agriculture is exceptional. I think subsidising agriculture is absolutely fine for a number of reasons, but I am, broadly speaking, against subsidies in general. But as always there is a need for some flexibility, and there are certain circumstances in which protections are sensible. There is nothing inconsistent about being broadly in favour of free trade while recognising that exceptional circumstances call for a different approach. The world is complex.
|
On April 06 2017 20:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
China is in renewables becuase they see massive growth potential in it. For the most part environmental improvements are centred around cities as the Chinese elite realise that actually it would be nice to be able to walk around breathing fresh air and drink tap water. It's actually quite bizarre to live your life inside Beijing never coming into contact with fresh air for a few seconds. From apartment, to car, to office, to shopping complex; a life of recycled air con.
They actually slowed down their growth, they need clean energies more than us at the moment. It's not only about money. If it were this way, the Americans would happily be more involved.
|
On April 06 2017 20:57 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 15:31 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 08:14 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 07:39 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:
[quote]
Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous. Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive. Yes, uncompetitive with China and India. If you want your economy to be efficient and to improve your quality of life then you don't force your consumers to pay more for their goods while channelling your own workforce into an industry in which they are not productive. It's fine in the short term, but the longer you take to find a world competitive niche of your own, the longer you pay the price of your protectionism. Agriculture is exceptional. Every developed country subsidises its agriculture. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to impose tariffs as well, though. You can subsidise your own agriculture and people who care about locally sourced food will pay a premium for it while people who can't afford that luxury will benefit from no tariffs on food from elsewhere. Oh please, so subsiding is Ok but tariffs are bad? Socialism to keep local food somewhat competitive is good but keeping other goods cheap is bad? These conservative arguments for the free markets never cease to amaze. It's as if you guys didn't believe in any of the stuff you are saying yourself. I'm guessing you missed the part where I said that agriculture is exceptional. I think subsidising agriculture is absolutely fine for a number of reasons, but I am, broadly speaking, against subsidies in general. But as always there is a need for some flexibility, and there are certain circumstances in which protections are sensible. There is nothing inconsistent about being broadly in favour of free trade while recognising that exceptional circumstances call for a different approach. The world is complex.
I can fully support the marked fundamental statements. I don't see how from these statements one reaches the conclusions that agriculture is exceptional, but some other good or service that large parts of your population depend on economically is not. The moment you open the market you need a broader political platform that covers the now intervined economical entities. The UK leaves that political entity, so in my eyes we should become very picky towards it again when it comes to trade, simple as that.
|
The EU is dropping roaming charges. Good decision. 
|
On April 07 2017 02:15 Shield wrote:The EU is dropping roaming charges. Good decision.
If I understand the new system correctly, it's "pay as you would at home", which, ironically, makes roaming with a Czech SIM cars more expensive than until know, because now it is "this is the maximum roaming charge" and, absurdly, the local Czech prices are higher than that - at least in some plans. For the last couple of years, if I wanted to call outside of my network with my Czech SIM, it was cheaper to do it in roaming!
Well, but whatever, this means I get to roam in the EU for the costs of my Polish local plan and that's a completely different story
|
On April 07 2017 02:06 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 20:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 15:31 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 08:14 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 07:39 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous. Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive. Yes, uncompetitive with China and India. If you want your economy to be efficient and to improve your quality of life then you don't force your consumers to pay more for their goods while channelling your own workforce into an industry in which they are not productive. It's fine in the short term, but the longer you take to find a world competitive niche of your own, the longer you pay the price of your protectionism. Agriculture is exceptional. Every developed country subsidises its agriculture. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to impose tariffs as well, though. You can subsidise your own agriculture and people who care about locally sourced food will pay a premium for it while people who can't afford that luxury will benefit from no tariffs on food from elsewhere. Oh please, so subsiding is Ok but tariffs are bad? Socialism to keep local food somewhat competitive is good but keeping other goods cheap is bad? These conservative arguments for the free markets never cease to amaze. It's as if you guys didn't believe in any of the stuff you are saying yourself. I'm guessing you missed the part where I said that agriculture is exceptional. I think subsidising agriculture is absolutely fine for a number of reasons, but I am, broadly speaking, against subsidies in general. But as always there is a need for some flexibility, and there are certain circumstances in which protections are sensible. There is nothing inconsistent about being broadly in favour of free trade while recognising that exceptional circumstances call for a different approach. The world is complex. I can fully support the marked fundamental statements. I don't see how from these statements one reaches the conclusions that agriculture is exceptional, but some other good or service that large parts of your population depend on economically is not. The moment you open the market you need a broader political platform that covers the now intervined economical entities. The UK leaves that political entity, so in my eyes we should become very picky towards it again when it comes to trade, simple as that.
That is perfectly fine. Completely contrary to the express aims of the EU to promote free trade, but fine. You still don't seem to understand that this kind of protectionism costs you, not us.
|
What is this "us" and "them" business? Last time I looked the UK is still in the EU.
|
On April 07 2017 03:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What is this "us" and "them" business? Last time I looked the UK is still in the EU.
Tell that to the Gibraltar immigration officers who today started turning away people wishing to travel with ID only and insisting that a passport is needed since the UK started leaving the EU.
|
On April 07 2017 02:48 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 02:06 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 20:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 15:31 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 08:14 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 07:39 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:
[quote]
It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit.
Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous. Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive. Yes, uncompetitive with China and India. If you want your economy to be efficient and to improve your quality of life then you don't force your consumers to pay more for their goods while channelling your own workforce into an industry in which they are not productive. It's fine in the short term, but the longer you take to find a world competitive niche of your own, the longer you pay the price of your protectionism. Agriculture is exceptional. Every developed country subsidises its agriculture. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to impose tariffs as well, though. You can subsidise your own agriculture and people who care about locally sourced food will pay a premium for it while people who can't afford that luxury will benefit from no tariffs on food from elsewhere. Oh please, so subsiding is Ok but tariffs are bad? Socialism to keep local food somewhat competitive is good but keeping other goods cheap is bad? These conservative arguments for the free markets never cease to amaze. It's as if you guys didn't believe in any of the stuff you are saying yourself. I'm guessing you missed the part where I said that agriculture is exceptional. I think subsidising agriculture is absolutely fine for a number of reasons, but I am, broadly speaking, against subsidies in general. But as always there is a need for some flexibility, and there are certain circumstances in which protections are sensible. There is nothing inconsistent about being broadly in favour of free trade while recognising that exceptional circumstances call for a different approach. The world is complex. I can fully support the marked fundamental statements. I don't see how from these statements one reaches the conclusions that agriculture is exceptional, but some other good or service that large parts of your population depend on economically is not. The moment you open the market you need a broader political platform that covers the now intervined economical entities. The UK leaves that political entity, so in my eyes we should become very picky towards it again when it comes to trade, simple as that. That is perfectly fine. Completely contrary to the express aims of the EU to promote free trade, but fine. You still don't seem to understand that this kind of protectionism costs you, not us.
There is no general rule on "who benefits more from trade, the exporter or the importer". It really is about the overall volume of trade, the structure of it and the mutual efficiency gain when you have a mutual economy. In terms of overall contribution to the other's economy Britain is much more dependent on the EU than the EU on Britain. Even if what you say would be that simple, if you are a much bigger economic entity you can take a much bigger blow in absolute terms. It really is about relative terms, and in that regard Britain is much more dependent on trade with the EU, than the EU on trade with Britain.
Protectionism is obviously not a tool to infuse growth, however it is a tool that allows your democracy to put mutually agreed rules in place that you cannot go around by simply trading into such countries from another place. Be it rules on labor or enviromental regulation, standards on the quality of goods or services, protection against tax and subsidary competition, protection against the exodus of jobs and capital and many more that might be desireable for a democratic society to not be dependent on wacky foreign decision making.
|
On April 07 2017 03:09 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 03:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What is this "us" and "them" business? Last time I looked the UK is still in the EU. Tell that to the Gibraltar immigration officers who today started turning away people wishing to travel with ID only and insisting that a passport is needed since the UK started leaving the EU. Are they now? That shouldn't happen. Must be difficult for the people of Gilbraltar, when the same occurs upon them. I was pointing out that you cannot say that UK has a different protectionist policies, when UK currently has the same protectionist policy as the EU as part of the EU. In any case bardtown has some strange fantasy that the EU is some sort of protectionist enclave in a sea of free trading countries. I don't really see how, unless he has no idea of the tarriffs and barriers of all the other countries outside the EU
|
Is there a good article on Gibraltar case? Preferably objective...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
