3 ms·

Yes, there are lots of trade barriers beyond tariffs, nonetheless the EU does impose plenty of them. See my other reply. And if your goal is to simply have clos

Yes, there are lots of trade barriers beyond tariffs, nonetheless the EU does impose plenty of them. See my other reply. And if your goal is to simply have closer trading relations then tariffs vs other kinds of regulatory barriers isn't an important difference. This is why Trump talks about things like VAT, and others in his camp talk about the fines levied on tech companies. From their perspective it's all financially equivalent to tariffs.

ben_w 2y ago
> tariffs vs other kinds of regulatory barriers isn't an important difference It's a huge difference! It's why the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect exists at all. Regulatory barriers are the foundational reason the EU parliament exists — to remove those barriers between member states and make sure all member states are on the same page when change needs to happen. One of the big talking points from the Leave campaign was about sovereignty: that's the ability to make the rules in your own jurisdiction. I never bought those arguments in part because the UK got basically everything it asked for, but also because Brexit combined (1) losing the power to influence those rules going forward, (2) still being de-facto subject them thanks to the Brussels effect, and (3) having a trade barrier with the EU despite #2, because the EU couldn't afford to just trust the UK on the matter. Every small business that stopped trading with the EU post-Brexit due to customs forms being too complex even when they and their customers would have been fine with the actual cost of the tariffs themselves, is a non-financial barrier. > This is why Trump talks about things like VAT, and others in his camp talk about the fines levied on tech companies. From their perspective it's all financially equivalent to tariffs. Does any inter-state trade within the US have tariffs due to different states having their own sales-tax rates? Because to me, the US talk about VAT is that kind of foolishness. Similar for fines for non-compliance with laws — what's the difference between two US states having different laws and one state suing a business for non-compliance, vs. the EU and US having different laws and an EU member state suing a business for non-compliance? In fact, if the regulatory barriers between the EU and US were levelled out, then the result would be somewhere on a line between "every Big Tech firm could be sued in a US court for GDPR violations" or "GDPR doesn't exist any more". I'm sure there's plenty of people in the US who would love to delete all the cookie popups and are eager to spy on everyone, but it really isn't just about pure monetary cost. Actually, now I think about it, cars and eggs: for cars, UK (and IIRC EU) law doesn't permit Cybertruck on the roads — if you tried to model that as a tariff, it would be ∞; likewise for eggs, US controls the salmonella risk of eggs by requiring cleaning which in turn damages the shells meaning they must be refrigerated in the supermarkets, while EU eggs handle it with vaccination of the hens and regard refrigeration before sale as a potential risk factor due to causing damage to the shells.

ben_w 2y ago

> tariffs vs other kinds of regulatory barriers isn't an important difference It's a huge difference! It's why the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect exists at all. Regulatory barriers are the foundational reason the EU parliament exists — to remove those barriers between member states and make sure all member states are on the same page when change needs to happen. One of the big talking points from the Leave campaign was about sovereignty: that's the ability to make the rules in your own jurisdiction. I never bought those arguments in part because the UK got basically everything it asked for, but also because Brexit combined (1) losing the power to influence those rules going forward, (2) still being de-facto subject them thanks to the Brussels effect, and (3) having a trade barrier with the EU despite #2, because the EU couldn't afford to just trust the UK on the matter. Every small business that stopped trading with the EU post-Brexit due to customs forms being too complex even when they and their customers would have been fine with the actual cost of the tariffs themselves, is a non-financial barrier. > This is why Trump talks about things like VAT, and others in his camp talk about the fines levied on tech companies. From their perspective it's all financially equivalent to tariffs. Does any inter-state trade within the US have tariffs due to different states having their own sales-tax rates? Because to me, the US talk about VAT is that kind of foolishness. Similar for fines for non-compliance with laws — what's the difference between two US states having different laws and one state suing a business for non-compliance, vs. the EU and US having different laws and an EU member state suing a business for non-compliance? In fact, if the regulatory barriers between the EU and US were levelled out, then the result would be somewhere on a line between "every Big Tech firm could be sued in a US court for GDPR violations" or "GDPR doesn't exist any more". I'm sure there's plenty of people in the US who would love to delete all the cookie popups and are eager to spy on everyone, but it really isn't just about pure monetary cost. Actually, now I think about it, cars and eggs: for cars, UK (and IIRC EU) law doesn't permit Cybertruck on the roads — if you tried to model that as a tariff, it would be ∞; likewise for eggs, US controls the salmonella risk of eggs by requiring cleaning which in turn damages the shells meaning they must be refrigerated in the supermarkets, while EU eggs handle it with vaccination of the hens and regard refrigeration before sale as a potential risk factor due to causing damage to the shells.