4 ms·

Is a boycott a form of trade war? What about an embargo? I'm surprised you can make such a sweeping statement. Frankly I don't think things are as simple as "fr

by Zarath 7y ago

Is a boycott a form of trade war? What about an embargo? I'm surprised you can make such a sweeping statement. Frankly I don't think things are as simple as "free markets" since they don't really exist. Companies are also political entities, exercising power in the real, physical world. Not some idealized vacuum market. What if we imposed tariffs on Chinese products that contain high amounts of lead? Does nobody win then? Suppose further that such a tariff hinders the expansion of companies who put high amounts of lead in their products, allowing a company who does not use lead to gain a supply chain and infrastructure advantage in these "expanded areas". Is nobody winning then?

ineedasername 7y ago
>"What if we imposed tariffs on Chinese products that contain high amounts of lead? Does nobody win then?" It's a poor example because that's not how products containing dangerous levels of a substance are dealt with. None of this recent trade war back & forth has imposed tariffs on any products for any reason resembling this. Even if they did, the answer is still "no", we don't win by simply making dangerous or deadly items more expensive. We ban them. When toys from China were found to have lead paint a few years ago, which violates US law, we didn't put tariffs on those toys, we put out public alerts and recall notices. If we do start putting tariffs on, say, vaping products from China because we believe they are dangerous, then maybe there would be a good comparison. However, even then, we could simply tax them locally instead of instituting an international tariff that would provoke trade tensions, so we still wouldn't "win" compared to available alternatives. Maybe there have been examples of winning a trade war via tariffs, but I'm not aware of them, and history is littered with losses. [0] [0]https://www.ft.com/content/ed1a5480-38c9-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8 https://www.ft.com/content/ed1a5480-38c9-11e8-8b98-2f31af407...
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > It's a poor example because that's not how products containing dangerous levels of a substance are dealt with. Well, it would actually be interesting, given that various RoHS-style approaches seem to rely entirely on bans and labelling requirements. Fees would be an interesting middle ground for things that can't be banned for product quality† reasons, but for which labelling is not a sufficient deterrent for low-value uses of hazardous substances. added: † Lead is a very useful material. In many cases, using lead instead of alternatives in a product can dramatically improve consumer safety. For example, lead solder is more ductile than lead-free solder; in a product that vibrates, lead solder can dramatically improve the useful life of a product, as far as I've been told. Furthermore, the higher temperatures required to make joints with lead-free solder increase the failure rate of components being soldered.
  - pergadad 7y ago
    The difficulty is not banning, the difficulty is detecting. Nobody indicates that their product has lead - it's found through inspections and once you found it you would be utterly stupid not to take the known-to-be-harmful product fully from the market.
  - fiter 7y ago
    This reminds me of California's ban on selling some products in large size containers. A person can buy 1 quart cans of some wood finishing products, but 1 gallon cans cannot be sold. Of course, this means if that person really wants the product, they can just buy four 1 quart cans for every 1 gallon can they would have bought. This at least makes that person weigh the decision to use the product versus an alternative that is preferred.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Yes, lead is a very useful material, which is why it's a bit ridiculous to say that putting a tariff on lead in itself would somehow allow a "win" in a trade war. In that generic sense, it's no different than any other raw material.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
wbl 7y ago
What's actually being discussed is making US consumers pay more for French cheese and Czech beer, in retaliation for Europe sending cheaper airplanes to the rest of the world.

by Zarath 7y ago

ineedasername 7y ago

>"What if we imposed tariffs on Chinese products that contain high amounts of lead? Does nobody win then?" It's a poor example because that's not how products containing dangerous levels of a substance are dealt with. None of this recent trade war back & forth has imposed tariffs on any products for any reason resembling this. Even if they did, the answer is still "no", we don't win by simply making dangerous or deadly items more expensive. We ban them. When toys from China were found to have lead paint a few years ago, which violates US law, we didn't put tariffs on those toys, we put out public alerts and recall notices. If we do start putting tariffs on, say, vaping products from China because we believe they are dangerous, then maybe there would be a good comparison. However, even then, we could simply tax them locally instead of instituting an international tariff that would provoke trade tensions, so we still wouldn't "win" compared to available alternatives. Maybe there have been examples of winning a trade war via tariffs, but I'm not aware of them, and history is littered with losses. [0] [0]https://www.ft.com/content/ed1a5480-38c9-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8 https://www.ft.com/content/ed1a5480-38c9-11e8-8b98-2f31af407...

microcolonel 7y ago
> It's a poor example because that's not how products containing dangerous levels of a substance are dealt with. Well, it would actually be interesting, given that various RoHS-style approaches seem to rely entirely on bans and labelling requirements. Fees would be an interesting middle ground for things that can't be banned for product quality† reasons, but for which labelling is not a sufficient deterrent for low-value uses of hazardous substances. added: † Lead is a very useful material. In many cases, using lead instead of alternatives in a product can dramatically improve consumer safety. For example, lead solder is more ductile than lead-free solder; in a product that vibrates, lead solder can dramatically improve the useful life of a product, as far as I've been told. Furthermore, the higher temperatures required to make joints with lead-free solder increase the failure rate of components being soldered.
- pergadad 7y ago
  The difficulty is not banning, the difficulty is detecting. Nobody indicates that their product has lead - it's found through inspections and once you found it you would be utterly stupid not to take the known-to-be-harmful product fully from the market.
- fiter 7y ago
  This reminds me of California's ban on selling some products in large size containers. A person can buy 1 quart cans of some wood finishing products, but 1 gallon cans cannot be sold. Of course, this means if that person really wants the product, they can just buy four 1 quart cans for every 1 gallon can they would have bought. This at least makes that person weigh the decision to use the product versus an alternative that is preferred.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Yes, lead is a very useful material, which is why it's a bit ridiculous to say that putting a tariff on lead in itself would somehow allow a "win" in a trade war. In that generic sense, it's no different than any other raw material.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

wbl 7y ago

What's actually being discussed is making US consumers pay more for French cheese and Czech beer, in retaliation for Europe sending cheaper airplanes to the rest of the world.