4 ms·

The difference is that food goods are fungible. A ton of wheat is just as good from the US as the local one basically. With clothes the situation is very much

by pas 2y ago

The difference is that food goods are fungible. A ton of wheat is just as good from the US as the local one basically. With clothes the situation is very much the opposite, brands compete globally, but rare unique local sometimes gets a premium.

catlikesshrimp 2y ago
not that easy: Rich countries have subsidies for some industries. Agriculture is always a pain point when dealing "free trade agreements". Pain for the poorer country. Imagine the US not having neither subsidy nor insurance for farms. Won't happen. Wheat from the US might be of better quality, and cheaper, but it poisons the poor country's economy. About used clothes. It is the same situation. Cheaper good (it comes for free from donors), maybe better good. Local industry can't compete. About new clothes. Well, yeah. Products must compete.
- pas 2y ago
  yes, that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. (and one argument is that US agricultural subsidies are to compensate for low cost of labor elsewhere) > Local industry can't compete. if local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. focusing on comparative advantages is important. and now because there's a very unproductive sector someone figured out banning imports is a "solution", but it only conserves the problem.
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    >If local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. People overseas always forget basic facts: if the unemployment rate of a country is 80%, How possible do you think it is to put the workers to do "something else" >that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. That's the whole point of a "free" trade agreement. It is usually a rich country which wants to get rid of import tariffs. And it (rich country) usually leverages its heavy influence on something else to force the agreement. Keep in mind I am not bashing at world order because - reasons. Just pointing out helping the wrong way does more harm than good.
    - pas 2y ago
      FTAs are ... complicated. But in case of the US .. the US has the protectionist tariffs on textiles and clothes, among other things. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/tariff_profiles/US_e.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/ta... Regarding unemployment. Calling out the US for protectionism -- especially after Trump's 2018 "trade war" that completely backfired -- is much easier than discussing developmental economic policies for Kenya, mostly because things were really fucking bad between 1946 and 1993. Import substitution was tried as a policy, and it failed. Current unemployment is 2.98%.

by pas 2y ago

catlikesshrimp 2y ago

not that easy: Rich countries have subsidies for some industries. Agriculture is always a pain point when dealing "free trade agreements". Pain for the poorer country. Imagine the US not having neither subsidy nor insurance for farms. Won't happen. Wheat from the US might be of better quality, and cheaper, but it poisons the poor country's economy. About used clothes. It is the same situation. Cheaper good (it comes for free from donors), maybe better good. Local industry can't compete. About new clothes. Well, yeah. Products must compete.

pas 2y ago
yes, that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. (and one argument is that US agricultural subsidies are to compensate for low cost of labor elsewhere) > Local industry can't compete. if local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. focusing on comparative advantages is important. and now because there's a very unproductive sector someone figured out banning imports is a "solution", but it only conserves the problem.
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  >If local cheap labor cannot compete with used overseas clothing, then they shouldn't. People overseas always forget basic facts: if the unemployment rate of a country is 80%, How possible do you think it is to put the workers to do "something else" >that's why it makes sense to put compensatory tariffs on subsidized products. That's the whole point of a "free" trade agreement. It is usually a rich country which wants to get rid of import tariffs. And it (rich country) usually leverages its heavy influence on something else to force the agreement. Keep in mind I am not bashing at world order because - reasons. Just pointing out helping the wrong way does more harm than good.
  - pas 2y ago
    FTAs are ... complicated. But in case of the US .. the US has the protectionist tariffs on textiles and clothes, among other things. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/tariff_profiles/US_e.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/ta... Regarding unemployment. Calling out the US for protectionism -- especially after Trump's 2018 "trade war" that completely backfired -- is much easier than discussing developmental economic policies for Kenya, mostly because things were really fucking bad between 1946 and 1993. Import substitution was tried as a policy, and it failed. Current unemployment is 2.98%.