11 ms·

Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? I can see the argument behind saying you should have access to your l

by lovich 9y ago

Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? I can see the argument behind saying you should have access to your local market be realtively free, you have to live somewhere, and you and your local societies interests are relatively aligned. However,when it comes to foreign markets many people here seems to want the best of both worlds. It's a paraphrase but it seems like saying "let me work however I want in your home, but don't limit me at all", seems to be the rallying cry. How is this not hypocritical?

pdelgallego 9y ago
I am ok with free trade, as long as it also apply to freedom of movement of capital, goods, and people, and we have a common set of rules, and a common court that applies them.
zavi 9y ago
The argument against protectionism is that it hinders growth of all parties involved.
- andosa 9y ago
  It certainly didn't hinder Baidu, Alibaba et al
volgo 9y ago
This is essentially Trump's argument against free trade. Your companies makes so much money in America and you don't have any rights here, why shouldn't we restrict you? Free trade isn't some right, it's just better for everyone involved
- oliwarner 9y ago
  > Free trade [.. is] just better for everyone involved How are zero-rate imports better for everyone? The consumer saves money. The government loses sales tax revenue, loses income tax revenue from the people that could have made it locally, has lower employment rates. Buying locally doesn't always make sense, but often you can make an economic argument that paying slightly more for something made and sold locally is better for the consumer too.
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    > Buying locally doesn't always make sense, but often you can make an economic argument that paying slightly more for something made and sold locally is better for the consumer too. 9/10 times this isn't correct. If you live in an urban capital, sure. If you live in somewhere more rural, oftentimes the only local makers in the area will be rather terrible, and a large company will have a better warranty almost all of the time. > The consumer saves money. The government loses sales tax revenue, loses income tax revenue from the people that could have made it locally, has lower employment rates. The consumer has a higher chance of the product they bought having support in three years. > How are zero-rate imports better for everyone? More opportunities for the consumer to buy things, more incentive for the company to entice customers with benefits, government isn't "everyone," and they still benefit by more net units sold because they can tax on-sale still.
    - oliwarner 9y ago
      By local, I mean national, or state, depending on where your taxes actually go. Not necessarily from your next door neighbour. But I think we're looking at this from different aspects. I was considering self-imports (eg Alibaba, some Ebay/Amazon sellers). You're considering big-box-Chinesium-imports vs something made by a local mom-and-pop. You might get better support from the big box longevity but that might be more reason for protectionist policy, not less. If you compare buying imported crap from a big-box to importing it yourself, you're paying the big-box for your "free" warranty. They build it into the price. But 30-50% of your cash is ending up offshore with no benefit to your own economy.
      - Mononokay 9y ago
        > If you compare buying imported crap from a big-box to importing it yourself, you're paying the big-box for your "free" warranty. They build it into the price. But 30-50% of your cash is ending up offshore with no benefit to your own economy. That's the brilliant part of free trade—in total, the amount gained by exporting will generally equal or be greater than if you were to tax on imports. Lessening consumer options is almost never a good thing. There's a bit more to "support" than a warranty. For example: if a person buys a piece of software, they should reasonably expect it to last until they move onto an operating system incompatible with it, no? What if an API the program uses is deprecated/removed for security reasons, ala Microsoft Gadgets. There's also the problem of long-term customer support. Your average user uses CS at least a few times over the course of the product's lifespan. A person who lives in Estonia or Poland doesn't even have a company creating say, a smartphone. They aren't competing with anything, so why punish both the company and consumer for getting a necessity in the modern age, a smartphone?
runeks 9y ago
> Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? Why would you want to restrict (economic) interaction between two parties just because they’re far away from each other? I’m sure some of the local companies in my area would love to prevent me from buying goods elsewhere, but why would I want to buy goods elsewhere unless they are either cheaper and/or of better quality? In my opinion, your quote misrepresents the situation. It’s not about “giving someone access to a market”, it’s about not restricting trade between two parties because it’s assumed those two parties are intelligent human beings who choose to trade with each other for a reason, and restricting this activity only helps inferior companies who are unable to market their own goods.
- andosa 9y ago
  Noone is restricting trade, they are simply saying that the fact that you are "far away" doesn't give you the right to dodge taxes that local companies have to pay. If anything it levels the playing field.
  - fruitzome 9y ago
    This is backwards. It is the government that is threatening force (fines, jailtime) if the company/people do not hand over a portion of their hard earned cash. These same thieves/politicians are the ones that wrote the laws and made these exceptions. The companies are under an obligation to their families, employees, suppliers, shareholders, and the community at large to maximize value. Or so you think that a government committee could build a cheaper, better, nicer iPhone? Do you think a group of bureaucrats would make a cheaper, better, more efficient Tesla Vehicle? We laugh at this, because we know the government is a bunch of people that on the whole have never employed people and created value from launching their own businesses. They do not know how to maximize wealth creation. Why do we think that the government raking in Billions more is going to be put to create better, faster, cheaper and more efficient goods ands and services than a company like Tesla, Apple or Amazon? Here's what's going to happen: Billions will be raked in. And billions will be spent on duds. Look at Canada spending 1B on a scheduling app that got scrapped because government workers didn't give a shit. Look at US gov spending on the billion dollar website. The money will go to the pockets of more lobbyists, politicians, and will flow back to the companies.... and less quality service will be delivered , and at a higher price. These companies employ so many people (who pay income tax from said revenues) and all kinds if intermediate taxes are paid in acquisition, and distribution of raw materials to final product to the door of the customer. Quite literally a $700 iPhone would cost less than $200 had the government not levied/taken profits at each step from: Land development, ore mining, glass and silicon manufacturing, assembly, distribution, packaging, shipping. And then they want to stifle growth further and take a 3% cut of gross revenues? I'm all for their cut during trade and VAT (20%!) But taking your hard earned profits to spend in wasteful ways while lining the surveillance communist state's pockets via broken and inefficient products is disgusting. This will not end well. The EU is well on it's path to full blown centrally planned totalitarianism and communist level controls. You will see.
lovich 9y ago
As a response to several people stating that free trade is better for everyone. I've taken economics courses, I understand how free trade is better overall. However, those calculations only work when both sides follow the same rules. Once you have different groups of people with different values, whether it's the EU valuing privacy, China valuing domestic production, or the US valuing intellectual property, absloute free trade seems to break down. You can't freely trade if you're using different units
- Faark 9y ago
  Isn't it still free trade having to comply with local regulation? As long as those regulations treats foreign companies/products the same as local ones, of cause. Import taxes or valuing domestic production/owners are not, but i don't see a problem with requiring food not to contain toxic stuff, no matter what country it comes from.
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  That’s not true and if you can believe that after taking several economics courses it speaks poorly of your teachers. The main benefits of free trade are in specialisation. People specialise in what they’re good in and trade for other goods and services. Specialisation leads to greater efficiency, meaning you can do the same with less, or more with the same amount. Notice the complete lack of the words domestic production or intellectual property. The case for free trade is that in the long run specialisation makes us richer. Units have nothing to do with it. Metric or imperial, services and goods are what they are.
  - cgag 9y ago
    I notice that domestic production seems to be implicitly valued at zero which seems likely to be wrong to me.
    - barry-cotter 9y ago
      The case for free trade does not care about borders. It cares about consumption, which there will be more of if things can be produced most efficiently. Things can be produced most efficiently with maximum specialisation, which is likeliest with free trade. Domestic production can be consumed more easily than foreign production so it is more valued because transport costs are lower. The border between San Francisco is as relevant as that between California and Nevada, or the US and Mexico. There are certainly things where it’s good to have domestic production, vaccines for one. But the argument is grossly overused. The wool of angora goats is protected in the US as of military value. Trading for what you need has worked out well for plenty of countries. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Costa Rica, Bahrain, Singapore, Hong Kong, my native Ireland. Domestic production is overrated.

by lovich 9y ago

pdelgallego 9y ago

I am ok with free trade, as long as it also apply to freedom of movement of capital, goods, and people, and we have a common set of rules, and a common court that applies them.

zavi 9y ago

The argument against protectionism is that it hinders growth of all parties involved.

andosa 9y ago
It certainly didn't hinder Baidu, Alibaba et al

volgo 9y ago

This is essentially Trump's argument against free trade. Your companies makes so much money in America and you don't have any rights here, why shouldn't we restrict you? Free trade isn't some right, it's just better for everyone involved

oliwarner 9y ago
> Free trade [.. is] just better for everyone involved How are zero-rate imports better for everyone? The consumer saves money. The government loses sales tax revenue, loses income tax revenue from the people that could have made it locally, has lower employment rates. Buying locally doesn't always make sense, but often you can make an economic argument that paying slightly more for something made and sold locally is better for the consumer too.
- Mononokay 9y ago
  > Buying locally doesn't always make sense, but often you can make an economic argument that paying slightly more for something made and sold locally is better for the consumer too. 9/10 times this isn't correct. If you live in an urban capital, sure. If you live in somewhere more rural, oftentimes the only local makers in the area will be rather terrible, and a large company will have a better warranty almost all of the time. > The consumer saves money. The government loses sales tax revenue, loses income tax revenue from the people that could have made it locally, has lower employment rates. The consumer has a higher chance of the product they bought having support in three years. > How are zero-rate imports better for everyone? More opportunities for the consumer to buy things, more incentive for the company to entice customers with benefits, government isn't "everyone," and they still benefit by more net units sold because they can tax on-sale still.
  - oliwarner 9y ago
    By local, I mean national, or state, depending on where your taxes actually go. Not necessarily from your next door neighbour. But I think we're looking at this from different aspects. I was considering self-imports (eg Alibaba, some Ebay/Amazon sellers). You're considering big-box-Chinesium-imports vs something made by a local mom-and-pop. You might get better support from the big box longevity but that might be more reason for protectionist policy, not less. If you compare buying imported crap from a big-box to importing it yourself, you're paying the big-box for your "free" warranty. They build it into the price. But 30-50% of your cash is ending up offshore with no benefit to your own economy.
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      > If you compare buying imported crap from a big-box to importing it yourself, you're paying the big-box for your "free" warranty. They build it into the price. But 30-50% of your cash is ending up offshore with no benefit to your own economy. That's the brilliant part of free trade—in total, the amount gained by exporting will generally equal or be greater than if you were to tax on imports. Lessening consumer options is almost never a good thing. There's a bit more to "support" than a warranty. For example: if a person buys a piece of software, they should reasonably expect it to last until they move onto an operating system incompatible with it, no? What if an API the program uses is deprecated/removed for security reasons, ala Microsoft Gadgets. There's also the problem of long-term customer support. Your average user uses CS at least a few times over the course of the product's lifespan. A person who lives in Estonia or Poland doesn't even have a company creating say, a smartphone. They aren't competing with anything, so why punish both the company and consumer for getting a necessity in the modern age, a smartphone?

runeks 9y ago

> Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? Why would you want to restrict (economic) interaction between two parties just because they’re far away from each other? I’m sure some of the local companies in my area would love to prevent me from buying goods elsewhere, but why would I want to buy goods elsewhere unless they are either cheaper and/or of better quality? In my opinion, your quote misrepresents the situation. It’s not about “giving someone access to a market”, it’s about not restricting trade between two parties because it’s assumed those two parties are intelligent human beings who choose to trade with each other for a reason, and restricting this activity only helps inferior companies who are unable to market their own goods.

andosa 9y ago
Noone is restricting trade, they are simply saying that the fact that you are "far away" doesn't give you the right to dodge taxes that local companies have to pay. If anything it levels the playing field.
- fruitzome 9y ago
  This is backwards. It is the government that is threatening force (fines, jailtime) if the company/people do not hand over a portion of their hard earned cash. These same thieves/politicians are the ones that wrote the laws and made these exceptions. The companies are under an obligation to their families, employees, suppliers, shareholders, and the community at large to maximize value. Or so you think that a government committee could build a cheaper, better, nicer iPhone? Do you think a group of bureaucrats would make a cheaper, better, more efficient Tesla Vehicle? We laugh at this, because we know the government is a bunch of people that on the whole have never employed people and created value from launching their own businesses. They do not know how to maximize wealth creation. Why do we think that the government raking in Billions more is going to be put to create better, faster, cheaper and more efficient goods ands and services than a company like Tesla, Apple or Amazon? Here's what's going to happen: Billions will be raked in. And billions will be spent on duds. Look at Canada spending 1B on a scheduling app that got scrapped because government workers didn't give a shit. Look at US gov spending on the billion dollar website. The money will go to the pockets of more lobbyists, politicians, and will flow back to the companies.... and less quality service will be delivered , and at a higher price. These companies employ so many people (who pay income tax from said revenues) and all kinds if intermediate taxes are paid in acquisition, and distribution of raw materials to final product to the door of the customer. Quite literally a $700 iPhone would cost less than $200 had the government not levied/taken profits at each step from: Land development, ore mining, glass and silicon manufacturing, assembly, distribution, packaging, shipping. And then they want to stifle growth further and take a 3% cut of gross revenues? I'm all for their cut during trade and VAT (20%!) But taking your hard earned profits to spend in wasteful ways while lining the surveillance communist state's pockets via broken and inefficient products is disgusting. This will not end well. The EU is well on it's path to full blown centrally planned totalitarianism and communist level controls. You will see.

lovich 9y ago

As a response to several people stating that free trade is better for everyone. I've taken economics courses, I understand how free trade is better overall. However, those calculations only work when both sides follow the same rules. Once you have different groups of people with different values, whether it's the EU valuing privacy, China valuing domestic production, or the US valuing intellectual property, absloute free trade seems to break down. You can't freely trade if you're using different units

Faark 9y ago
Isn't it still free trade having to comply with local regulation? As long as those regulations treats foreign companies/products the same as local ones, of cause. Import taxes or valuing domestic production/owners are not, but i don't see a problem with requiring food not to contain toxic stuff, no matter what country it comes from.
barry-cotter 9y ago
That’s not true and if you can believe that after taking several economics courses it speaks poorly of your teachers. The main benefits of free trade are in specialisation. People specialise in what they’re good in and trade for other goods and services. Specialisation leads to greater efficiency, meaning you can do the same with less, or more with the same amount. Notice the complete lack of the words domestic production or intellectual property. The case for free trade is that in the long run specialisation makes us richer. Units have nothing to do with it. Metric or imperial, services and goods are what they are.
- cgag 9y ago
  I notice that domestic production seems to be implicitly valued at zero which seems likely to be wrong to me.
  - barry-cotter 9y ago
    The case for free trade does not care about borders. It cares about consumption, which there will be more of if things can be produced most efficiently. Things can be produced most efficiently with maximum specialisation, which is likeliest with free trade. Domestic production can be consumed more easily than foreign production so it is more valued because transport costs are lower. The border between San Francisco is as relevant as that between California and Nevada, or the US and Mexico. There are certainly things where it’s good to have domestic production, vaccines for one. But the argument is grossly overused. The wool of angora goats is protected in the US as of military value. Trading for what you need has worked out well for plenty of countries. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Costa Rica, Bahrain, Singapore, Hong Kong, my native Ireland. Domestic production is overrated.