7 ms·

I've seen economists argue that most of the benefits of low tariffs actually comes from increased imports. Increasing imports increases the consumer surplus fro

by yding 8y ago

I've seen economists argue that most of the benefits of low tariffs actually comes from increased imports. Increasing imports increases the consumer surplus from the cheaper goods and is an easy way to increase a country's standard of living without much effort. Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Macau all have 0 import tariffs, and rather than mass unemployment they are incredibly rich by international standards.

Gibbon1 8y ago
Switzerland, Hong Kong are banking centers. Singapore, and Macau focus very heavily on manufacturing and pass through trade. One issue I have with economists and their theories of tariffs is they are unable to consider the effects of institutional tariffs and subsidies. Meaning companies while the could buy foreign products instead buy locally produced ones. And the banking sector shows strong preferences to who they extend capital to. For instance providing capital to build a factory and refusing to loan money to buy back shares.
be_jenk 8y ago
Those are also a tiny fraction of the size of the USA and China and have few rural poor communities to consider
- yding 8y ago
  Right, which is why they are not conclusive evidence that 0 tariffs are suitable for everyone, like some economists would suggest.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  In the case of Switzerland, protecting the farmers with agricultural import tariffs and subsidies is definitely a thing!
adventured 8y ago
> Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Macau So a banking haven, with banks so massive they'd require the big US banks to get over 10x larger to match the relative scale to the Swiss economy. A tiny, highly regulated gambling haven, that can't be replicated to the US scale at all. And then two tiny islands in Hong Kong and Singapore, with a combined 13 million people. That's a really terrible comparison sheet for arguing low tariffs are a big benefit to the US economy. Now show me the same for: Germany, France, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, Brazil, Russia, Spain, South Korea. The world's largest economies, and countries that actually have serious population sizes.
- yding 8y ago
  My point is that 0 tariffs doesn't automatically equal disaster. But I agree that there's not enough evidence to say that unilaterally reducing tariffs to zero is actually the best policy, although some economists do make that argument.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
Other than Switzerland, those entities are basically built around a single large city. I doubt that their experience is very telling for countries that have a large non-urban population.
cityhomesteader 8y ago
Those are all tiny "money/finance" economies and in the case of macau - a gambling economy. None of them are major manufacturing countries or economic powers. They have 0 imports because they hardly produce anything. Most of the top 20 wealthiest countries have tariffs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_... Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science. Remember that we are supposed to have been in a world ending global recession for the past two years according to one of the most "eminent" economists. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/elec...
- rory096 8y ago
  >Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science. "A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'"
  - cityhomesteader 8y ago
    > "A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. That's the problem with all pseudosciences - politics, social sciences, etc. Everyone has an opinion and they can't provide any empirical tests to get at the truth. That's the difference between a science like physics and a pseudoscience like economics. It's why two economists with contradictory views can win a nobel prize at the same time. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/business/3-american-professors-awarded-nobel-in-economic-sciences.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/business/3-american-profe... It's fundamentally nonsense. > Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'" Because a geologist can show you that igneous rocks are not "bullshit". Empirically, physically. They can provide empirical tests to differentiate an igneous rock from bullshit.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Those are all city states or (in the case of Switzerland) a small country. Not easy to generalize.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  Why not?
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Small economies that have to import almost everything. When you have to import so much, having import tariffs is a dumb idea.

by yding 8y ago

Gibbon1 8y ago

Switzerland, Hong Kong are banking centers. Singapore, and Macau focus very heavily on manufacturing and pass through trade. One issue I have with economists and their theories of tariffs is they are unable to consider the effects of institutional tariffs and subsidies. Meaning companies while the could buy foreign products instead buy locally produced ones. And the banking sector shows strong preferences to who they extend capital to. For instance providing capital to build a factory and refusing to loan money to buy back shares.

be_jenk 8y ago

Those are also a tiny fraction of the size of the USA and China and have few rural poor communities to consider

yding 8y ago
Right, which is why they are not conclusive evidence that 0 tariffs are suitable for everyone, like some economists would suggest.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
In the case of Switzerland, protecting the farmers with agricultural import tariffs and subsidies is definitely a thing!

adventured 8y ago

> Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Macau So a banking haven, with banks so massive they'd require the big US banks to get over 10x larger to match the relative scale to the Swiss economy. A tiny, highly regulated gambling haven, that can't be replicated to the US scale at all. And then two tiny islands in Hong Kong and Singapore, with a combined 13 million people. That's a really terrible comparison sheet for arguing low tariffs are a big benefit to the US economy. Now show me the same for: Germany, France, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, Brazil, Russia, Spain, South Korea. The world's largest economies, and countries that actually have serious population sizes.

yding 8y ago
My point is that 0 tariffs doesn't automatically equal disaster. But I agree that there's not enough evidence to say that unilaterally reducing tariffs to zero is actually the best policy, although some economists do make that argument.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

Other than Switzerland, those entities are basically built around a single large city. I doubt that their experience is very telling for countries that have a large non-urban population.

cityhomesteader 8y ago

Those are all tiny "money/finance" economies and in the case of macau - a gambling economy. None of them are major manufacturing countries or economic powers. They have 0 imports because they hardly produce anything. Most of the top 20 wealthiest countries have tariffs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_... Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science. Remember that we are supposed to have been in a world ending global recession for the past two years according to one of the most "eminent" economists. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/elec...

rory096 8y ago
>Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science. "A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'"
- cityhomesteader 8y ago
  > "A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. That's the problem with all pseudosciences - politics, social sciences, etc. Everyone has an opinion and they can't provide any empirical tests to get at the truth. That's the difference between a science like physics and a pseudoscience like economics. It's why two economists with contradictory views can win a nobel prize at the same time. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/business/3-american-professors-awarded-nobel-in-economic-sciences.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/business/3-american-profe... It's fundamentally nonsense. > Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'" Because a geologist can show you that igneous rocks are not "bullshit". Empirically, physically. They can provide empirical tests to differentiate an igneous rock from bullshit.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Those are all city states or (in the case of Switzerland) a small country. Not easy to generalize.

stickfigure 8y ago
Why not?
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Small economies that have to import almost everything. When you have to import so much, having import tariffs is a dumb idea.