3 ms·

I think standards development should be open, so Switzerland is the ideal host in any geopolitical situation. Otherwise, I do think the American economy could b

I think standards development should be open, so Switzerland is the ideal host in any geopolitical situation. Otherwise, I do think the American economy could benefit from restrictions on imports. It's called import substitution economics, which worked very well for american steel back in the late 19th century. Not sure if it'll work again though. Things are different now.

pjc50 7y ago
The mistake is categorising things like iPhones as simple "imports", when both the parts and the software and most of the profits are from American companies. I work for an iPhone-part-supplying US headquarters company with offices around the world. We spent some considerable effort working out who was allowed to continue talking to Huawei.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  How have things changed for you all over the past few years?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    I've only been working there for a year, but the company has been on a general upward curve it seems.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
It would definitely work. The USA is a -huge- market, it just wouldn't be as economically "good/efficient" as free trade is in a strictly classical economics sense.
- onepointsixC 7y ago
  That's only true if the global order continues. The only reason why you can set up shop across the street from a US factory and import some goods from halfway across the world and sell it for cheaper is because the United States Navy made the risk of shipping those goods negligible. That wasn't the norm for most written history and is a function of the post WW2 order. If the US elects a pacifist president who cuts the DoD budget in half, or even if the current POTUS continues on his isolationist path then this will no longer be the case.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Tariffs and other protectionary measures make much more sense for developing countries than for developed countries. Developing countries want to protect their fledgling industries from much stronger competition from the developed world. This hurts consumers in developing countries, who are forced to buy substandard domestic products at higher prices. Developed countries want as free of trade as possible, so that their advanced companies can sell everywhere, and their consumers can buy the best products at the cheapest price. A good analogy is to weight classes in boxing. They protect lighter fighters from the heavyweights. The heavyweights themselves would be fine if the weight classes were abolished. They'd win every fight.
- coliveira 7y ago
  Excellent explanation. I wish people, especially politicians, had a clear understanding of this.
- lliamander 7y ago
  That would be more true if domestic labor was on a more even playing field with global competitors. As it stands, domestic labor is expensive: not just because of wages and benefits, but also health and safety regulations, legal liabilities, etc. I'm not saying we necessarily need to roll back those protections, but it's worth mentioning out that as the cost of hiring domestic labor in developed countries go up, companies begin to off-shore labor as soon as they are able. My point is that we already don't have "free trade". The question is whether tariffs are a good way to balance the scales between domestic and foreign labor.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    > as the cost of hiring domestic labor in developed countries go up, companies begin to off-shore labor as soon as they are able. Productivity of labor is also much higher in developed countries. What matters is comparative advantage. Even from a strictly economic point of view, it is often better for rich countries to off-shore a lot of low-level manufacturing. That decreases prices for manufactured goods in rich countries and frees labor for more productive jobs. If you somehow force companies to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US, two things will have to happen: 1. Prices will increase for consumers. 2. People will be transferred from their current jobs to the new manufacturing jobs. You may actually be transferring people from more useful, productive labor into less productive labor, leaving the entire society worse off.
justin66 7y ago
> I think standards development should be open, so Switzerland is the ideal host in any geopolitical situation. If you think Switzerland is particularly "open" in terms of intellectual property law it would be interesting to understand why.

pjc50 7y ago

The mistake is categorising things like iPhones as simple "imports", when both the parts and the software and most of the profits are from American companies. I work for an iPhone-part-supplying US headquarters company with offices around the world. We spent some considerable effort working out who was allowed to continue talking to Huawei.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
How have things changed for you all over the past few years?
- pjc50 7y ago
  I've only been working there for a year, but the company has been on a general upward curve it seems.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

It would definitely work. The USA is a -huge- market, it just wouldn't be as economically "good/efficient" as free trade is in a strictly classical economics sense.

onepointsixC 7y ago
That's only true if the global order continues. The only reason why you can set up shop across the street from a US factory and import some goods from halfway across the world and sell it for cheaper is because the United States Navy made the risk of shipping those goods negligible. That wasn't the norm for most written history and is a function of the post WW2 order. If the US elects a pacifist president who cuts the DoD budget in half, or even if the current POTUS continues on his isolationist path then this will no longer be the case.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Tariffs and other protectionary measures make much more sense for developing countries than for developed countries. Developing countries want to protect their fledgling industries from much stronger competition from the developed world. This hurts consumers in developing countries, who are forced to buy substandard domestic products at higher prices. Developed countries want as free of trade as possible, so that their advanced companies can sell everywhere, and their consumers can buy the best products at the cheapest price. A good analogy is to weight classes in boxing. They protect lighter fighters from the heavyweights. The heavyweights themselves would be fine if the weight classes were abolished. They'd win every fight.

coliveira 7y ago
Excellent explanation. I wish people, especially politicians, had a clear understanding of this.
lliamander 7y ago
That would be more true if domestic labor was on a more even playing field with global competitors. As it stands, domestic labor is expensive: not just because of wages and benefits, but also health and safety regulations, legal liabilities, etc. I'm not saying we necessarily need to roll back those protections, but it's worth mentioning out that as the cost of hiring domestic labor in developed countries go up, companies begin to off-shore labor as soon as they are able. My point is that we already don't have "free trade". The question is whether tariffs are a good way to balance the scales between domestic and foreign labor.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > as the cost of hiring domestic labor in developed countries go up, companies begin to off-shore labor as soon as they are able. Productivity of labor is also much higher in developed countries. What matters is comparative advantage. Even from a strictly economic point of view, it is often better for rich countries to off-shore a lot of low-level manufacturing. That decreases prices for manufactured goods in rich countries and frees labor for more productive jobs. If you somehow force companies to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US, two things will have to happen: 1. Prices will increase for consumers. 2. People will be transferred from their current jobs to the new manufacturing jobs. You may actually be transferring people from more useful, productive labor into less productive labor, leaving the entire society worse off.

justin66 7y ago

> I think standards development should be open, so Switzerland is the ideal host in any geopolitical situation. If you think Switzerland is particularly "open" in terms of intellectual property law it would be interesting to understand why.