4 ms·

No. This is the zero-sum mentality that has been causing the EU such serious economic problems. Trade creates wealth and wealth is not zero sum. Trade deals ge

No. This is the zero-sum mentality that has been causing the EU such serious economic problems. Trade creates wealth and wealth is not zero sum. Trade deals get signed because all parties involved believe it will be to their mutual benefit. Why would you want to sign a trade deal with a weak country? It is self-defeating: you would get little out of it. Parts of the EU establishment seem locked in a mindset that they can only grow by taking things away from others. I saw a lot of discussion post-Brexit by countries that want to abuse regulatory passporting to try and force banks and other high-earning firms into other EU countries, but no discussion at all about making those countries naturally more attractive. It's the equivalent of saying "We will grow our economy by forcing Facebook to relocate its HQ from Silicon Valley to France by passing a regulation saying they must do so". Even if you brought overwhelming political and economic power to bear and somehow forced the Zuck to move to Paris, it'd just be a terrible idea for all sorts of long term reasons.

regularfry 10y ago
> No. But the rest of your comment seems to say "Yes." > Trade deals get signed because all parties involved believe it will be to their mutual benefit. I think that's optimistic. Deals get signed fundamentally because each side individually benefits. A better deal will see the weaker partner able to grow as a result, but that's not necessary for it to be worthwhile to the stronger partner. > Why would you want to sign a trade deal with a weak country? It is self-defeating: you would get little out of it. There's always a stronger and a weaker player at the table. It might take some fiddling to work out which is which, and it's certainly not limited to a single axis, but deals still happen. > abuse regulatory passporting I don't see that as abuse, that's just playing the game with the pieces that are on the board. From France's point of view, given the choice between a quick zero-sum win where they gain the limited number of banks available and a long-term mutual win where everyone grows, why not do both?

regularfry 10y ago

> No. But the rest of your comment seems to say "Yes." > Trade deals get signed because all parties involved believe it will be to their mutual benefit. I think that's optimistic. Deals get signed fundamentally because each side individually benefits. A better deal will see the weaker partner able to grow as a result, but that's not necessary for it to be worthwhile to the stronger partner. > Why would you want to sign a trade deal with a weak country? It is self-defeating: you would get little out of it. There's always a stronger and a weaker player at the table. It might take some fiddling to work out which is which, and it's certainly not limited to a single axis, but deals still happen. > abuse regulatory passporting I don't see that as abuse, that's just playing the game with the pieces that are on the board. From France's point of view, given the choice between a quick zero-sum win where they gain the limited number of banks available and a long-term mutual win where everyone grows, why not do both?