20 ms·

Tariffs aren't imposed to protect the population, but specific well-connected players who lobby for such protections to avoid competition.

by henvic 5y ago

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
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  For me, banning the import of legal goods is something else. Here in Norway you're allowed to import certain cheeses that are also produced locally, but you'll have to pay a 300% or so duty on them. So it's strongly discouraged but not banned. Similar for other food stuff. And as I mentioned in another comment, there's quotas given for a lot of these food items, that exempts duty for a certain amount of imported goods. This way the government can give strong protection for the amount produced locally, while meeting consumer demand via imports. I feel this is a good compromise. Textiles is another example which have a 12% duty, a relatively minor protection. And that's about the extent of our protectionism.
  - henvic 5y ago
    No. A good compromise is leaving business between A and B if you are C. If you produce the best textile in the world and charge only a penny, but someone would prefer to pay a pound for something awful from overseas, they should have the liberty to do so. It's none of your business how other people trade.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      This is the craziest idea I've ever heard when it comes to economics . Isn't that basically the libertarian "everyone should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to do" approach? As in....do you not recognize that society might want to value having functional industries and employment above absolute freedom for businesses? And as someone else already pointed out - there are whole bunch of externalities that we all pay for by allowing this unfettered and unlimited trade. With your approach if it was cheaper to ship fresh salad 20k miles than buy local, it should be allowed because after all, why should you interfere with local businesses? Sometimes it is a matter of national security too, where one country knowingly attempts to destroy another's industry by dumping their product at cost prices - great for consumers I imagine you'd say. But again, you are being very short sighted.
dennis_jeeves 5y ago
>Tariffs aren't imposed to protect the population, but specific well-connected players who lobby for such protections to avoid competition. henvic, you won't convince the dimwits here, I assure you.

Tariffs aren't imposed to protect the population, but specific well-connected players who lobby for such protections to avoid competition.

by 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

magicalhippo 5y ago
For me, banning the import of legal goods is something else. Here in Norway you're allowed to import certain cheeses that are also produced locally, but you'll have to pay a 300% or so duty on them. So it's strongly discouraged but not banned. Similar for other food stuff. And as I mentioned in another comment, there's quotas given for a lot of these food items, that exempts duty for a certain amount of imported goods. This way the government can give strong protection for the amount produced locally, while meeting consumer demand via imports. I feel this is a good compromise. Textiles is another example which have a 12% duty, a relatively minor protection. And that's about the extent of our protectionism.
- henvic 5y ago
  No. A good compromise is leaving business between A and B if you are C. If you produce the best textile in the world and charge only a penny, but someone would prefer to pay a pound for something awful from overseas, they should have the liberty to do so. It's none of your business how other people trade.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    This is the craziest idea I've ever heard when it comes to economics . Isn't that basically the libertarian "everyone should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to do" approach? As in....do you not recognize that society might want to value having functional industries and employment above absolute freedom for businesses? And as someone else already pointed out - there are whole bunch of externalities that we all pay for by allowing this unfettered and unlimited trade. With your approach if it was cheaper to ship fresh salad 20k miles than buy local, it should be allowed because after all, why should you interfere with local businesses? Sometimes it is a matter of national security too, where one country knowingly attempts to destroy another's industry by dumping their product at cost prices - great for consumers I imagine you'd say. But again, you are being very short sighted.

dennis_jeeves 5y ago

>Tariffs aren't imposed to protect the population, but specific well-connected players who lobby for such protections to avoid competition. henvic, you won't convince the dimwits here, I assure you.