3 ms·

> But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle But this is the point you're missing: it's not just a matter o

> But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle But this is the point you're missing: it's not just a matter of principle. It's a matter of reasoning. For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense (money permitting) than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker EU country economy will negatively affect their country or the whole EU than a weak Moroccan economy. What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Because if it is negatively impacted in any way then it pretty much proves it was not just a matter of principle. And to counter some more of your points, local olive producers are already the highest on the value chain and at this point any productivity boosts will come at a cost many are not willing to accept and that conflicts with the previous point. Think chemicals, think lower quality, etc. Why are free-range chickens (and eggs) so popular in the UK if you could just increase productivity with high stocking density? With every comment you throw the goalpost in another zipcode.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
>For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker local EU economy will negatively affect their country or the EU than a weak Moroccan economy. No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy. That reasoning is flawed as a general principle (even though it may well be true in specific cases or circumstances). >What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Well, that would be extremely stupid and I'm not advocating it at all. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect.
- close04 7y ago
  > No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy The more customers local businesses lose in favor of off-shore producers the weaker they get, to the point where they disappear or become importers. If you're an EU citizen you're more likely to be impacted if another EU country's economy isn't going well than if Morocco's economy suffers. One thing is for sure, economies don't strengthen by giving up local production and export in favor of importing or all-local consumption. > Well, that would be extremely stupid. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect. Now why would that be stupid? After the passionate argumentation that trade is very relevant to improving living standards in those poorer countries and that it does not weaken the domestic economy you come back to say that doing it would be stupid? You just shot your argument in both feet and sawed them off for good measure. Or perhaps arbitrarily only some people should buy from off-shore while others from near-shore. As for the "moral argument" you said exactly something to that effect: > the same countries we want to take in all the refugees from Africa and the Middle East. The EU-Turkey refugee agreement is for over 6bn Euros in aid. That's in case you thought all that "refugee taking" is expected to be paid in olives or trade assistance.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    >The more customers local businesses lose in favor of off-shore producers the weaker they get, to the point where they disappear or become importers. Yes, that is a possibility and it happens all the time. But what are some possible outcomes for the economy as a whole? a) Domestic producers improve productivity and standards so they can compete with lower wages elsewhere. b) Domestic producers move up the value chain importing lower value goods and services. c) The domestic economy declines while a foreign one rises. Your economic model only allows for c while some combination of a and b has been the basis for our economic progress and prosperity. That's why I disagree with you. Your morals/pity accusation is a misunderstanding predicated on your assumption that importing goods we could produce ourselves hurts our economy. As I do not agree with that assumption, it follows that morals or pity couldn't possibly have been my motivation for bringing up migration. My motivation for bringing it up was that trading with these countries is an opportunity to act in our mutual interest. It can benefit both sides and it is an opportunity to do what keeps getting repeated every time we have a migration crisis: Improve living standards in our neighboring regions. We shouldn't waste this opportunity based on some flawed mercantilist economic model.
- baud147258 7y ago
  > buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy. That reasoning is flawed as a general principle I don't see how it's flawed as a general principle, even if it could be true in specific cases or circumstances (like your local economy moving up the value chain or becoming more productive and more competitive).
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    Economies moving up the value chain and becoming more productive is not a special circumstance. It's the most fundamental force of economic progress and prosperity. That's why acting in a way that weakens this force should be a rare exception rather than the rule.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

>For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker local EU economy will negatively affect their country or the EU than a weak Moroccan economy. No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy. That reasoning is flawed as a general principle (even though it may well be true in specific cases or circumstances). >What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Well, that would be extremely stupid and I'm not advocating it at all. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect.

close04 7y ago
> No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy The more customers local businesses lose in favor of off-shore producers the weaker they get, to the point where they disappear or become importers. If you're an EU citizen you're more likely to be impacted if another EU country's economy isn't going well than if Morocco's economy suffers. One thing is for sure, economies don't strengthen by giving up local production and export in favor of importing or all-local consumption. > Well, that would be extremely stupid. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect. Now why would that be stupid? After the passionate argumentation that trade is very relevant to improving living standards in those poorer countries and that it does not weaken the domestic economy you come back to say that doing it would be stupid? You just shot your argument in both feet and sawed them off for good measure. Or perhaps arbitrarily only some people should buy from off-shore while others from near-shore. As for the "moral argument" you said exactly something to that effect: > the same countries we want to take in all the refugees from Africa and the Middle East. The EU-Turkey refugee agreement is for over 6bn Euros in aid. That's in case you thought all that "refugee taking" is expected to be paid in olives or trade assistance.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >The more customers local businesses lose in favor of off-shore producers the weaker they get, to the point where they disappear or become importers. Yes, that is a possibility and it happens all the time. But what are some possible outcomes for the economy as a whole? a) Domestic producers improve productivity and standards so they can compete with lower wages elsewhere. b) Domestic producers move up the value chain importing lower value goods and services. c) The domestic economy declines while a foreign one rises. Your economic model only allows for c while some combination of a and b has been the basis for our economic progress and prosperity. That's why I disagree with you. Your morals/pity accusation is a misunderstanding predicated on your assumption that importing goods we could produce ourselves hurts our economy. As I do not agree with that assumption, it follows that morals or pity couldn't possibly have been my motivation for bringing up migration. My motivation for bringing it up was that trading with these countries is an opportunity to act in our mutual interest. It can benefit both sides and it is an opportunity to do what keeps getting repeated every time we have a migration crisis: Improve living standards in our neighboring regions. We shouldn't waste this opportunity based on some flawed mercantilist economic model.
baud147258 7y ago
> buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy. That reasoning is flawed as a general principle I don't see how it's flawed as a general principle, even if it could be true in specific cases or circumstances (like your local economy moving up the value chain or becoming more productive and more competitive).
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  Economies moving up the value chain and becoming more productive is not a special circumstance. It's the most fundamental force of economic progress and prosperity. That's why acting in a way that weakens this force should be a rare exception rather than the rule.