5 ms·

There's no need to politicize the issue or bring the completely irrelevant refugee topic in the discussion. Anyway the argument is so oversimplified that it's i

There's no need to politicize the issue or bring the completely irrelevant refugee topic in the discussion. Anyway the argument is so oversimplified that it's irrelevant in any discussion. No matter where you buy from a similar argument can just as easily and arbitrarily be used pro or against it.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I strongly disagree. Trade is very relevant to improving living standards and living standards are very relevant to migration (which is the term I should have used instead of refugees in spite of the fact that these two issues are closely linked). Of course this is a complex subject, but I am responding to the extremely oversimplified idea that not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live".
- lostlogin 7y ago
  This I completely agreed with until 3 weeks ago. When borders close you need local industries and a degree of security in terms of food and other resources. The foreign owned supermarket couldn’t provide and the locally owned one couldn’t either (there are only 2 here in New Zealand), and it took over an hour queuing to find this out. However I contacted a farm with a mill which could. I don’t know what to think now, as it isn’t practical to make everything in one country.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    I don't doubt that it's a good idea to have some local food production everywhere. But huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. Also, self sufficiency doesn't really work, not for very long at least. After a few weeks, you run out of some chemical or some replacement part. The right response to a pandemic can't be to return to a medieval style economy.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      > huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. So you would move the "huge olive plantations" from Spain, Italy and Greece to Turkey and Tunisia, which also couldn't exist without trade?
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        No, I wouldn't "move" anything. I just wouldn't boycott them based on the premise that trade only benefits one side.
        baud147258 7y ago
        I don't disagree that trade has benefits on both sides, but why would I need to import oil from the other side when it can be produced locally?
        fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        For one, it's not produced locally. I live in London. There are no olive trees here. I'm buying a lot of Spanish, Italian and Greek olive oil because I like it and I trust their standards. But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle. I think that barring any special circumstances, it's best for the progress of humanity if consumers buy the best value for money. It creates upward pressure on productivity, which is ultimately the _only_ thing that increases potential living standards for everyone. I know this is very complex, and there are many ways in which prices can be distorted so that "value for money" isn't what it appears to be on the surface. However, there are equally many ways in which alleged "distortions" are exploited as an excuse for damaging protectionism. For instance, the "cheap labour" argument is often used in an extremely biased way. One person's "cheap labour" is another person's improvement in living standards and yet another person's access to healthy food that was previously only available to the wealthy. Perhaps a more succinct answer to your question is this: To force local producers to move up the value chain or become more productive.
- close04 7y ago
  You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. What about the moral argument that by buying from any oppressive or dictatorial regime you are supporting that regime? And wouldn't this directly hurt local businesses? Given that the cost of living and production in the EU is higher the only way those businesses can survive is if a wealthier population buys the product, which is a much narrower segment of the market. > not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live" Yes, buying from "someone" does support "someone". You can't be surprised by this, can you? Businesses need customers to survive. Without customers all local producers especially in such "expensive" countries become local importers from cheaper countries. What happens to the local economy once so much of the production is moved abroad, especially in exceptional situations like today? What happens when relation with that country go sour? You suggest that EU citizens should leave Greek and Italian family business out to dry because Morocco and Turkey are receiving immigrants. This is a weak argument, appealing only to pity ("but think of the immigrants") and brushing aside everything else.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    >You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all and it's not what I'm doing myself. I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from (barring special circumstances). I'm also suggesting that reducing trade with poorer neighbors has downsides for everybody, even if you are convinced that buying locally is economically beneficial. >Yes, buying from "where they live" does support "where you live". No, it does not necessarily do that. If you buy the same quality at a higher price locally, you may well be preventing your local economy from moving up the value chain or from becoming more productive and more competitive. >You made a weak argument, appealing only to pity That would be true if I was advocating buying worse value for money to support those countries. But that's not what I'm saying at all.
    - close04 7y ago

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

I strongly disagree. Trade is very relevant to improving living standards and living standards are very relevant to migration (which is the term I should have used instead of refugees in spite of the fact that these two issues are closely linked). Of course this is a complex subject, but I am responding to the extremely oversimplified idea that not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live".

lostlogin 7y ago
This I completely agreed with until 3 weeks ago. When borders close you need local industries and a degree of security in terms of food and other resources. The foreign owned supermarket couldn’t provide and the locally owned one couldn’t either (there are only 2 here in New Zealand), and it took over an hour queuing to find this out. However I contacted a farm with a mill which could. I don’t know what to think now, as it isn’t practical to make everything in one country.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I don't doubt that it's a good idea to have some local food production everywhere. But huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. Also, self sufficiency doesn't really work, not for very long at least. After a few weeks, you run out of some chemical or some replacement part. The right response to a pandemic can't be to return to a medieval style economy.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    > huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. So you would move the "huge olive plantations" from Spain, Italy and Greece to Turkey and Tunisia, which also couldn't exist without trade?
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      No, I wouldn't "move" anything. I just wouldn't boycott them based on the premise that trade only benefits one side.
      - baud147258 7y ago
        I don't disagree that trade has benefits on both sides, but why would I need to import oil from the other side when it can be produced locally?
        fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        For one, it's not produced locally. I live in London. There are no olive trees here. I'm buying a lot of Spanish, Italian and Greek olive oil because I like it and I trust their standards. But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle. I think that barring any special circumstances, it's best for the progress of humanity if consumers buy the best value for money. It creates upward pressure on productivity, which is ultimately the _only_ thing that increases potential living standards for everyone. I know this is very complex, and there are many ways in which prices can be distorted so that "value for money" isn't what it appears to be on the surface. However, there are equally many ways in which alleged "distortions" are exploited as an excuse for damaging protectionism. For instance, the "cheap labour" argument is often used in an extremely biased way. One person's "cheap labour" is another person's improvement in living standards and yet another person's access to healthy food that was previously only available to the wealthy. Perhaps a more succinct answer to your question is this: To force local producers to move up the value chain or become more productive.
close04 7y ago
You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. What about the moral argument that by buying from any oppressive or dictatorial regime you are supporting that regime? And wouldn't this directly hurt local businesses? Given that the cost of living and production in the EU is higher the only way those businesses can survive is if a wealthier population buys the product, which is a much narrower segment of the market. > not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live" Yes, buying from "someone" does support "someone". You can't be surprised by this, can you? Businesses need customers to survive. Without customers all local producers especially in such "expensive" countries become local importers from cheaper countries. What happens to the local economy once so much of the production is moved abroad, especially in exceptional situations like today? What happens when relation with that country go sour? You suggest that EU citizens should leave Greek and Italian family business out to dry because Morocco and Turkey are receiving immigrants. This is a weak argument, appealing only to pity ("but think of the immigrants") and brushing aside everything else.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all and it's not what I'm doing myself. I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from (barring special circumstances). I'm also suggesting that reducing trade with poorer neighbors has downsides for everybody, even if you are convinced that buying locally is economically beneficial. >Yes, buying from "where they live" does support "where you live". No, it does not necessarily do that. If you buy the same quality at a higher price locally, you may well be preventing your local economy from moving up the value chain or from becoming more productive and more competitive. >You made a weak argument, appealing only to pity That would be true if I was advocating buying worse value for money to support those countries. But that's not what I'm saying at all.
  - close04 7y ago