3 ms·
The Economist did address these, their basic argument is that trade is a win-win. Usually when these win-wins go wrong they have the gains filtered off by a mi
by ZeroGravitas 2y ago
The Economist did address these, their basic argument is that trade is a win-win.
Usually when these win-wins go wrong they have the gains filtered off by a middleman or monopolist but in this case it seems the government uses the money earned to subsidize household bills which means they do get the benefit of trade.
Stopping the trade therefore means higher prices for domestic consumers. This is the basic point the article makes repeatedly.
- ryao 2y agoIt did not seem to directly address how one scenario is better than the other. The article felt like “do it this way; it is better and don’t worry how”. I should stress that I am only saying this because I find the omission curious. I do not have any opinion either way at this time.