9 ms·

Isn't it better (though harder) to have a good environment for building things than to just write protectionist rules?

apexalpha 3y ago
It should probably go hand in hand. The US federal government is spending a lot of money on getting fabs to the US. But they also banned ASML from exporting their machines to China. So they're simply doing both. Furthermore, the EU is more expensive than other countries because we have stricter environmental standards and our people don't want to work 50+ hours a week as many in Asia do. Letting Asian countries simply undercut your own homegrown companies because of these two (dis)advantages seems shortsighted.
dns_snek 3y ago
At what cost? An environment with slave labor would be great if you wanted to have things produced for cheap. Should we allow slave labor to stay competitive? This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to. Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality, employee welfare, or environmental impact.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > At what cost? At the cost of seeing people take advantage of the opportunity to add value for their customers. > This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to It's not what it comes down to. Someone in the market for the cheapest smartphone possible won't buy a $10 phone even though it's cheaper than the next alternative, because quality also matters. Or at least, value for money matters. > Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality Someone might be willing to offer something cheaper, but thanks to the free market, that option will only be popular if people believe it's good value for money and buy it. > employee welfare This is mostly a competition issue. If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. > or environmental impact This happens in all types of agreements. The limiter on non-free market countries for environmental impact isn't ethics, it's inefficiency. Only regulations can solve this.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    People thought the iPhone was good value for money even though there were widespread reports of workers killing themselves by jumping out of factory windows due to horrible working conditions. I'm not singling them out, just providing a point of reference. [1] > If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. Employees working in a manufacturing facilities in e.g. China and Europe aren't competing for the same jobs. There's one set of standards for employees there, and there's another set of standards for employees here. We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. [1] What can we do other than add protectionist rules? > Only regulations can solve this. Agreed. And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. I think you're excluding the middle[0] here. If you think the EU can't compete, you can't just say it's due to worker protections. There are lots of reasons. E.g. there's load more investment capital available in the US; that's not due to Chinese labour laws. > What can we do other than add protectionist rules? Worker protection isn't the same as protectionism. > And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet Much tighter, more specific rules though. Not "free markets bad so protectionism". Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban. [0] https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html
      - 3y ago
alexey-salmin 3y ago
Even if you have the best environment others still have the protectionist rules
usrusr 3y ago
You write as if that had ever been tried. Everybody has protectionist rules. Some have a little less of them than others and they make a big show of it, but acting as if that show was equivalent to absence of protectionism is like celebrating self-imposed ignorance.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > acting as if that show was equivalent to absence of protectionism is like celebrating self-imposed ignorance How is it like celebrating that?

It should probably go hand in hand. The US federal government is spending a lot of money on getting fabs to the US. But they also banned ASML from exporting their machines to China. So they're simply doing both. Furthermore, the EU is more expensive than other countries because we have stricter environmental standards and our people don't want to work 50+ hours a week as many in Asia do. Letting Asian countries simply undercut your own homegrown companies because of these two (dis)advantages seems shortsighted.

dns_snek 3y ago

At what cost? An environment with slave labor would be great if you wanted to have things produced for cheap. Should we allow slave labor to stay competitive? This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to. Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality, employee welfare, or environmental impact.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> At what cost? At the cost of seeing people take advantage of the opportunity to add value for their customers. > This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to It's not what it comes down to. Someone in the market for the cheapest smartphone possible won't buy a $10 phone even though it's cheaper than the next alternative, because quality also matters. Or at least, value for money matters. > Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality Someone might be willing to offer something cheaper, but thanks to the free market, that option will only be popular if people believe it's good value for money and buy it. > employee welfare This is mostly a competition issue. If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. > or environmental impact This happens in all types of agreements. The limiter on non-free market countries for environmental impact isn't ethics, it's inefficiency. Only regulations can solve this.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  People thought the iPhone was good value for money even though there were widespread reports of workers killing themselves by jumping out of factory windows due to horrible working conditions. I'm not singling them out, just providing a point of reference. [1] > If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. Employees working in a manufacturing facilities in e.g. China and Europe aren't competing for the same jobs. There's one set of standards for employees there, and there's another set of standards for employees here. We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. [1] What can we do other than add protectionist rules? > Only regulations can solve this. Agreed. And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. I think you're excluding the middle[0] here. If you think the EU can't compete, you can't just say it's due to worker protections. There are lots of reasons. E.g. there's load more investment capital available in the US; that's not due to Chinese labour laws. > What can we do other than add protectionist rules? Worker protection isn't the same as protectionism. > And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet Much tighter, more specific rules though. Not "free markets bad so protectionism". Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban. [0] https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html
    - 3y ago

alexey-salmin 3y ago

Even if you have the best environment others still have the protectionist rules

usrusr 3y ago

You write as if that had ever been tried. Everybody has protectionist rules. Some have a little less of them than others and they make a big show of it, but acting as if that show was equivalent to absence of protectionism is like celebrating self-imposed ignorance.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> acting as if that show was equivalent to absence of protectionism is like celebrating self-imposed ignorance How is it like celebrating that?