6 ms·

I'm sorry for your trouble. Customs are one of the most harmful things for society in our day and age. People in highly developed countries don't notice this m

by henvic 5y ago

I'm sorry for your trouble. Customs are one of the most harmful things for society in our day and age. People in highly developed countries don't notice this much. Still, people from poorer countries with high bureaucracy and intervention in trade by customs cannot access good and cheaper stuff from elsewhere. In the end, a few official importers/exporters with good relations with the state apparatus plus corrupt customs agents benefit at the cost of the impoverished society.

Amezarak 5y ago
Conversely, cheap international goods can wipe out local industry, which can leave people in less developed economies permanently impoverished.
- henvic 5y ago
  This is a lie. If you live in a rich country you consume thousands of different things a day. If you live in a poor country and are really poor, you might consume hundreds. You consume way more than you produce. Don't fall for this trap. Otherwise, next thing you'll stop doing business with anyone else because it's better to live by your own means.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    The....what? If you make a product X and someone imports product X from a country where labour is 1/10th of the price, you go bust. In a lot of cases countries impose customs duties to protect those businesses, because it's better to have a working industry than cheap goods. Which part exactly is a lie?
    - henvic 5y ago
      Tariffs aren't imposed to protect the population, but specific well-connected players who lobby for such protections to avoid competition.
      - gambiting 5y ago
        Well, such a wild accusation requires a source. I can name several examples where tariffs were introduced specifically to protect local industries, mostly farmers, because it would be cheaper to just import foreign apples or carrots than locally grown, but obviously if you allow that to happen you don't have an apple or carrot growing industry next year. You could argue that "rich farm owners lobbied politicians to avoid competition" but you couldn't be any further from the truth. It was demanded by the farmer cooperatives and unions through protests, not some wealthy magnates.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        Is it more important to serve the farmers or the broad population who wants to eat apples and carrots?
        mind-blight 5y ago
        It really depends on the context. Focusing only on the price a costumer pays as your main metric ignores a lot of potentially negative externalities. One recent example in the US: a lot of small local business were suffering because the Chinese government was heavily subsidizing shipments to the US. So much so that it was cheaper in some places to get a product mailed from China than from across the street. The US started pushing back with tariffs while appealing too the universal postal union postal union. That kept the US businesses from going under while the UPU slowly went through the process of forcing china to follow their rules. And that's ignoring pollution, all the negatives that happen for the whole population when an industry and/or small businesses collapse within a country, and other negative externalities
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Tariffs are supposed to protect the population.
      - henvic 5y ago
        No. They aren't supposed to protect the population. This is a lame excuse to implement it without popular revolt. I was born in Brazil and lived there for most of my life. When I was young, it was, in practical terms, forbidden to import computers and cars to the country to protect the "nascent" national industry. I know very well from a close point of view how tariffs can make everyone's lives miserable. My father had to import his first computers illegally. Knock-offs IBM PCs bought in Paraguay. Imagine in the early 80s to travel from NY to San Francisco to smuggle computers over the border because a mad man in the state decided you cannot trade goods with someone who lives far away. This is what customs is about. Protectionism is not only dumb, it's vile! Pure evil! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7njIlZ2xYq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7njIlZ2xYq0
    - astrange 5y ago
      Tariffs don't protect local businesses, they charge local customers more in order to punish foreign companies. Besides being a tax on your own population, they have bad effects on other local businesses both because you didn't predict their foreign inputs and because they're always followed by retaliation on your own exports.
      - gambiting 5y ago
        >>Tariffs don't protect local businesses, they charge local customers more in order to punish foreign companies. That statement literally makes no sense whatsoever. No offence. Tariffs are paid by the importing entities, so the idea is to make it more expensive to import foreign goods than locally produced ones. I am aware that some countries like the US use tariffs punitively but that's like using a hammer to make an omelette.
        rascul 5y ago
        > Tariffs are paid by the importing entities Seems those entities would likely raise prices to cover increased tariffs.
        swiftcoder 5y ago
        Thus making the prices of their local competitors more attractive. Ergo, protecting local producers. Notably, not to protect businesses in general - if your business is importing/retailing exclusively foreign goods, then tariffs are explicitly designed to disadvantage you versus someone retailing local products.
        clairity 5y ago
        only if there is positive price elasticity, and that depends on market dynamics (price is a function of both supply and demand). for instance, if there is a local alternative that's 10% more expensive, you might have that 10% leeway available to you to increase prices, but not if demand drops sharply (negative price elasticity) because substitutes exist or the good isn't as essential as it seemed.
        5y ago
  - whatever1 5y ago
    Protectionism seems to be working great for China though
    - astrange 5y ago
      It's not really working that well except that some of it serves their other ends, like being able to enforce laws on local companies better. What's much more important is they have good industrial policy, export discipline, and that unreasonably good deal with the UPU that lets them send mail to the US for cheaper than we can send it inside the country.
      - whatever1 5y ago
        By not allowing amazon, google etc to do business in their country they enabled the development of huge, profitable corporations like Alibaba, Tencent etc that now employ advanced personnel like software developers, ML engineers etc, invest in university research, and overall have great positive impact in their economy. That is in direct contrast to what economists have been suggesting to us (aka the decision of China to restrict multinational corps to deploy their high tech would limit their growth)
        throwaway2048 5y ago
        Yep the idea that protectionism doesn't work and is harmful is in direct contravention to how every single advanced industrial economy developed. Its a self serving idea pushed by people who benefit massively.
        astrange 5y ago
        They have Baidu because they have the industrial policy, higher education system and subsidies to produce Baidu. If another country banned Google they would simply not have Google and that would be it. Note that Yandex and VK exist in Russia without having to ban all competition.
        whatever1 5y ago
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    In aggregate, we produce and consume an equal amount.
- astrange 5y ago
  Being able to buy stuff cheaper is actually good because both supply and demand exist. A better way to grow an economy is to do "export discipline", the opposite of import restriction, where you force your local industries to be international quality so that other countries buy from you.
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    That might be great if the good we're talking about is consumer electronics. (At least economically. Environmentally or socially perhaps we'd be better off without consumer electronics.) It's difficult for me to see how this works for the farmers and textile manufacturers. Underdeveloped economies by definition don't have much advanced industry. If you wipe out local producers of necessities you have virtually nothing left and no base to build on to develop advanced industry. I'm also not really sure this has turned out well for advanced countries like the US, but it definitely does make part of the country richer. I'm leery of any argument that claims that any given economic policy is an unmitigated good with no contingencies or tradeoffs.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      If foreign food or textiles are cheaper than your local production in a developing nation, it seems your population is suffering from those inflated prices and the aggregate good of the nation may very well be improved by having more food and clothing available at lower-than-current prices. Anything less is forcing your local population to subsidize the inefficient-but-domestic production of goods.
      - blululu 5y ago
        There’s an old joke about a statistician who drowned in water that was only one meter deep - On Average. Thinking in terms of aggregate value neglects the possibility that you will create winners and losers in such a scenario and creating a system of transfers to share the aggregate surplus is politically difficult.
        5y ago
- clairity 5y ago
  in a similar vein, i could drown in a bathtub, but it's not likely. more rationale is needed here around whether that risk is worth considering seriously. the econ 101 idea that tariffs are always bad (something that invariably comes up in these kinds of discussions) is only true in perfectly spherical, frictionless worlds populated by instantaneously rational actors. tariffs actually can work in the real world (to develop a fledgling industry, for example), but it can't be a one-off holy-grail policy, but rather part of a holistic, coordinated program.
magicalhippo 5y ago
Seems like main issue you have is with corruption, not customs. Corruption is bad regardless. I'm happy our customs is making it harder for people to import all kinds of illegal and/or dangerous goods, like weapons and assorted chemicals pretending to be medicine or drugs, into our country.
- antihero 5y ago
  The only thing I really care about for customs is bombs and human trafficking. I wish they would focus on those things and not just getting in the way of things. Maddening that my tax money is spent on preventing me doing stuff.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    you should also be concerned about pests riding along with your fruit, ready to destroy your country's ecosystem. there's boring yet legitimate stuff to scan for.

by henvic 5y ago

Amezarak 5y ago

Conversely, cheap international goods can wipe out local industry, which can leave people in less developed economies permanently impoverished.

henvic 5y ago
This is a lie. If you live in a rich country you consume thousands of different things a day. If you live in a poor country and are really poor, you might consume hundreds. You consume way more than you produce. Don't fall for this trap. Otherwise, next thing you'll stop doing business with anyone else because it's better to live by your own means.
- gambiting 5y ago
  The....what? If you make a product X and someone imports product X from a country where labour is 1/10th of the price, you go bust. In a lot of cases countries impose customs duties to protect those businesses, because it's better to have a working industry than cheap goods. Which part exactly is a lie?
  - henvic 5y ago
    Tariffs aren't imposed to protect the population, but specific well-connected players who lobby for such protections to avoid competition.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      Well, such a wild accusation requires a source. I can name several examples where tariffs were introduced specifically to protect local industries, mostly farmers, because it would be cheaper to just import foreign apples or carrots than locally grown, but obviously if you allow that to happen you don't have an apple or carrot growing industry next year. You could argue that "rich farm owners lobbied politicians to avoid competition" but you couldn't be any further from the truth. It was demanded by the farmer cooperatives and unions through protests, not some wealthy magnates.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Is it more important to serve the farmers or the broad population who wants to eat apples and carrots?
        mind-blight 5y ago
        It really depends on the context. Focusing only on the price a costumer pays as your main metric ignores a lot of potentially negative externalities. One recent example in the US: a lot of small local business were suffering because the Chinese government was heavily subsidizing shipments to the US. So much so that it was cheaper in some places to get a product mailed from China than from across the street. The US started pushing back with tariffs while appealing too the universal postal union postal union. That kept the US businesses from going under while the UPU slowly went through the process of forcing china to follow their rules. And that's ignoring pollution, all the negatives that happen for the whole population when an industry and/or small businesses collapse within a country, and other negative externalities
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Tariffs are supposed to protect the population.
    - henvic 5y ago
      No. They aren't supposed to protect the population. This is a lame excuse to implement it without popular revolt. I was born in Brazil and lived there for most of my life. When I was young, it was, in practical terms, forbidden to import computers and cars to the country to protect the "nascent" national industry. I know very well from a close point of view how tariffs can make everyone's lives miserable. My father had to import his first computers illegally. Knock-offs IBM PCs bought in Paraguay. Imagine in the early 80s to travel from NY to San Francisco to smuggle computers over the border because a mad man in the state decided you cannot trade goods with someone who lives far away. This is what customs is about. Protectionism is not only dumb, it's vile! Pure evil! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7njIlZ2xYq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7njIlZ2xYq0
  - astrange 5y ago
    Tariffs don't protect local businesses, they charge local customers more in order to punish foreign companies. Besides being a tax on your own population, they have bad effects on other local businesses both because you didn't predict their foreign inputs and because they're always followed by retaliation on your own exports.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      >>Tariffs don't protect local businesses, they charge local customers more in order to punish foreign companies. That statement literally makes no sense whatsoever. No offence. Tariffs are paid by the importing entities, so the idea is to make it more expensive to import foreign goods than locally produced ones. I am aware that some countries like the US use tariffs punitively but that's like using a hammer to make an omelette.
      - rascul 5y ago
        > Tariffs are paid by the importing entities Seems those entities would likely raise prices to cover increased tariffs.
        swiftcoder 5y ago
        Thus making the prices of their local competitors more attractive. Ergo, protecting local producers. Notably, not to protect businesses in general - if your business is importing/retailing exclusively foreign goods, then tariffs are explicitly designed to disadvantage you versus someone retailing local products.
        clairity 5y ago
        only if there is positive price elasticity, and that depends on market dynamics (price is a function of both supply and demand). for instance, if there is a local alternative that's 10% more expensive, you might have that 10% leeway available to you to increase prices, but not if demand drops sharply (negative price elasticity) because substitutes exist or the good isn't as essential as it seemed.
      - 5y ago
- whatever1 5y ago
  Protectionism seems to be working great for China though
  - astrange 5y ago
    It's not really working that well except that some of it serves their other ends, like being able to enforce laws on local companies better. What's much more important is they have good industrial policy, export discipline, and that unreasonably good deal with the UPU that lets them send mail to the US for cheaper than we can send it inside the country.
    - whatever1 5y ago
      By not allowing amazon, google etc to do business in their country they enabled the development of huge, profitable corporations like Alibaba, Tencent etc that now employ advanced personnel like software developers, ML engineers etc, invest in university research, and overall have great positive impact in their economy. That is in direct contrast to what economists have been suggesting to us (aka the decision of China to restrict multinational corps to deploy their high tech would limit their growth)
      - throwaway2048 5y ago
        Yep the idea that protectionism doesn't work and is harmful is in direct contravention to how every single advanced industrial economy developed. Its a self serving idea pushed by people who benefit massively.
      - astrange 5y ago
        They have Baidu because they have the industrial policy, higher education system and subsidies to produce Baidu. If another country banned Google they would simply not have Google and that would be it. Note that Yandex and VK exist in Russia without having to ban all competition.
        whatever1 5y ago
- cortesoft 5y ago
  In aggregate, we produce and consume an equal amount.
astrange 5y ago
Being able to buy stuff cheaper is actually good because both supply and demand exist. A better way to grow an economy is to do "export discipline", the opposite of import restriction, where you force your local industries to be international quality so that other countries buy from you.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  That might be great if the good we're talking about is consumer electronics. (At least economically. Environmentally or socially perhaps we'd be better off without consumer electronics.) It's difficult for me to see how this works for the farmers and textile manufacturers. Underdeveloped economies by definition don't have much advanced industry. If you wipe out local producers of necessities you have virtually nothing left and no base to build on to develop advanced industry. I'm also not really sure this has turned out well for advanced countries like the US, but it definitely does make part of the country richer. I'm leery of any argument that claims that any given economic policy is an unmitigated good with no contingencies or tradeoffs.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If foreign food or textiles are cheaper than your local production in a developing nation, it seems your population is suffering from those inflated prices and the aggregate good of the nation may very well be improved by having more food and clothing available at lower-than-current prices. Anything less is forcing your local population to subsidize the inefficient-but-domestic production of goods.
    - blululu 5y ago
      There’s an old joke about a statistician who drowned in water that was only one meter deep - On Average. Thinking in terms of aggregate value neglects the possibility that you will create winners and losers in such a scenario and creating a system of transfers to share the aggregate surplus is politically difficult.
      - 5y ago
clairity 5y ago
in a similar vein, i could drown in a bathtub, but it's not likely. more rationale is needed here around whether that risk is worth considering seriously. the econ 101 idea that tariffs are always bad (something that invariably comes up in these kinds of discussions) is only true in perfectly spherical, frictionless worlds populated by instantaneously rational actors. tariffs actually can work in the real world (to develop a fledgling industry, for example), but it can't be a one-off holy-grail policy, but rather part of a holistic, coordinated program.

magicalhippo 5y ago

Seems like main issue you have is with corruption, not customs. Corruption is bad regardless. I'm happy our customs is making it harder for people to import all kinds of illegal and/or dangerous goods, like weapons and assorted chemicals pretending to be medicine or drugs, into our country.

antihero 5y ago
The only thing I really care about for customs is bombs and human trafficking. I wish they would focus on those things and not just getting in the way of things. Maddening that my tax money is spent on preventing me doing stuff.
- sterlind 5y ago
  you should also be concerned about pests riding along with your fruit, ready to destroy your country's ecosystem. there's boring yet legitimate stuff to scan for.