3 ms·

Ok, so this is complicated. Tariffs are only part of the story. First I agree that some countries will protect industries they consider to be of national inter

by cletus 8y ago

Ok, so this is complicated. Tariffs are only part of the story. First I agree that some countries will protect industries they consider to be of national interest or are just politically important, like the Canadian dairy industry. I actually think this is OK. Second I think it is true that there is some hypocrisy here on both sides. It's fair to say US trading partners impose tariffs on US goods and ask why the US shouldn't do the same. But the US doesn't play fair here either. Take wheat. Or agricultural products in general. In the US (and the EU) these are massively subsidized. If you're talking about tariffs, you should also include subsidies. But it gets worse: as an example the the US has historically blocked Australian agricultural products (including wheat) on quarantine grounds. While protecting local ecosystems is valid (eg Australia has, I believe, the only disease-free farmed salmon in the world) it's also used as a barrier to trade. It's clear the US here has historically used quarantine as an excuse to protect US farmers (ironically when Australian farmers aren't subsidized and US farmers are). Fun fact: this little trade spat led to a deal in ~2006 that resulted in the Australian-only E3 US work visa. The problem here is we have a complete buffoon in the White House who is the poster-child for anti-intellectualism. So, why put tariffs on Chinese tech goods? Those are primarily just assembled in China these days. China imports most of the parts from Korea, Japan and other places. It's also clear that China plays favourites with local tech companies. It's a fair question to ask why the US should open up to Chinese tech companies when China won't reciprocate?

tehlike 8y ago
You have a fair point, but you can say that most of agriculture is _probably_ subsidized in a good part of the world, because governments have to feed their people. Also for china, they have subsidies or support from government over foreign companies (which you also mentioned) which is also unfair. Trumps tariff is not about price of goods. It is more of a forcing hand to ease trade and american corporations to enter these markets easily.
Retric 8y ago
Buying subsidized products from another country means you benefit from the subsidy. Having native producers to cover basic food needs via plants is reasonable, but importing subsidized beef is a net economic benefit.
- cletus 8y ago
  So here's the problem: doing so can decimate a local industry, which is fine until the subsidies stop or, now having eliminated the competition, the exporters jack up the price or otherwise hold the importer hostage in some way. Australian dairy exporters have been suffering from this because a traditional export market (SE Asia) has been flooded with cheap (subsidized) dairy products from the EU (particularly Italy IIRC). This typically gets labelled "dumping". Now market forces (and since subsidies are in play it's not really market forces) will otherwise kill the local industry. When those producers are gone and a change of government ends the dumping those producers don't magically reappear. It takes time. This sort of thing is why so often self-sufficiency and key industries are touted as being in the national interest.

by cletus 8y ago

tehlike 8y ago

You have a fair point, but you can say that most of agriculture is _probably_ subsidized in a good part of the world, because governments have to feed their people. Also for china, they have subsidies or support from government over foreign companies (which you also mentioned) which is also unfair. Trumps tariff is not about price of goods. It is more of a forcing hand to ease trade and american corporations to enter these markets easily.

Retric 8y ago

Buying subsidized products from another country means you benefit from the subsidy. Having native producers to cover basic food needs via plants is reasonable, but importing subsidized beef is a net economic benefit.

cletus 8y ago
So here's the problem: doing so can decimate a local industry, which is fine until the subsidies stop or, now having eliminated the competition, the exporters jack up the price or otherwise hold the importer hostage in some way. Australian dairy exporters have been suffering from this because a traditional export market (SE Asia) has been flooded with cheap (subsidized) dairy products from the EU (particularly Italy IIRC). This typically gets labelled "dumping". Now market forces (and since subsidies are in play it's not really market forces) will otherwise kill the local industry. When those producers are gone and a change of government ends the dumping those producers don't magically reappear. It takes time. This sort of thing is why so often self-sufficiency and key industries are touted as being in the national interest.