-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Tariffs on electrical goods
- Thread starter Grave
- Start date
- Status
This is how it worked in Russia I belive when under communist rule , each area ( often nation states under the banner of the Russian union) were given tasks.
As every economic area is to varying degrees in different states of transitory development it’s not realistic to determine one static roll for each area as amir suggests . To do so requires a suppression of free will, it’s unnatural and self defeating as you suppress one of our fundamental needs, self determination as recognised individuals.
Still it’s a lovely idea , just not for humans .
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
The thing about «free market», it’s a metaphor, an image. Trump recently called the free market bluff:
«“I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies!” Trump said in a Tuesday night tweet. “That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready - but they won’t!”
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ting-all-tariffs-ahead-of-key-meeting-with-eu
So «everybody» talks about the free market, but nobody takes his or her time to define it. The point is, being enthusiasticlly in favor of something one can’t define; how did this enthusiasm come about?
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,409
It's not a metaphor, it's a capitalist ideal that no society has ever actually implemented. It's not at all hard to define; it's just a bad idea to fully implement - even Trump seems basically able to define it.
I find it ludicrous that Trump is pretending that the only thing stopping him from creating a truly free market is the behaviour of other countries. This is pure deflection, and is incoherent with so many of his other comments on economic policy.
Last edited:
If we could stay away from individuals and their politics ( party politics etc ) and stick to the mechanisms and ideas at play, I know it hard and you are just about on the right side of the invisible line but this can easily descend into something else less desirable.
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
Ok, let me elaborate.
«Free trade» is a metaphor. It doesn’t exist. What does exist in real-life (and not in mathemtical models) however, are «free-trade agreements». Important difference!
The argument is entertained by Dani Rodrik in this recent paper:
https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/what_do_trade_agreements_really_do.pdf
Let me quote from Rodrik (2018):
«Regardless, it is curious that economists tend to be nearly unanimous in their view that trade agreements are a good thing. Despite not knowing much about the details, they must believe such agreements regularly strike the right balance in all these areas of ambiguity.4 Is it that none of these complications matter as long as the agreement is called a “free trade agreement”?»
Do you see my/Rodrik’s point?
——- EDIT ——-
Let me use another Rodrik (2018) quote to put forward an idea in that paper for those who have not time to read it:
«I have presented an alternative perspective in this paper. Rather than neutralizing the protectionists, trade agreements may empower a different set of rent-seeking interests and politically well-connected firms—international banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational firms. They may serve to internation- alize the influence of these powerful domestic interests».
Definition of «rent-seeking»: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,409
Ok, I agree that most "free trade agreements" are only partially about free trade, and that absolute free trade has never actually existed (and I hope it never does).
I'd be careful using a word like "metaphor" though. I think what you mean is that free trade is an ideal (that has not in practice been fully realised).
Sure
Didn't bring him into the discussion in the first place, and won't mention him again.
Nothing is free, there’s a lot of nuance involved in ‘free’ trade deals.
Some kind of organised , defined relationship that recognises the differing attributes and needs of the nation states involved in order to provide a base for greater efficiency ( removal of tariffs and bureaucracy etc) through cooperation exploiting mutual advantage.
Often someone gets bummed though lol
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,409
hahahaaahaaa
if one is of a philosophical bend Trade issues are very profound...
Selling means someone can produce and another is buying. The equilibrium is not static. It varies with the times and the constant evolution/changes in societies. We are currently witnessing the dynamics involved in trade magnified by the power of the media/internet.
The current situation stems from the over-simplistic approach and mindset of some individuals who possess nonetheless extraordinary means and power... It can only lead to very serious problems.
Selling means someone can produce and another is buying. The equilibrium is not static. It varies with the times and the constant evolution/changes in societies. We are currently witnessing the dynamics involved in trade magnified by the power of the media/internet.
The current situation stems from the over-simplistic approach and mindset of some individuals who possess nonetheless extraordinary means and power... It can only lead to very serious problems.
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
Ok, I agree that most "free trade agreements" are only partially about free trade, and that absolute free trade has never actually existed (and I hope it never does).
I'd be careful using a word like "metaphor" though. I think what you mean is that free trade is an ideal (that has not in practice been fully realised).
Sure
Excellent that you see my point. And from there, it’s easier to see that models, Nobel prizes, think tanks, public policy are just that: Based on something which is not real, and agreements of free-trade are always different from the ideal/metaphor/image of win-win that certain interests push.
This may be the red pill. From here on, everything could be much more interesting, or frightening given humans’ avoidance of cognitive dissonance.
So are tariffs on imports a good/necessary thing? I'm not detecting any overarching idea. We have heard that free trade doesn't exist - and even the hope that it never does exist. Are tariffs a method of ensuring that that terrible day never arrives?
It is easy to state what exists and to speculate about how it operates, but there seems to be no answer to whether the US should change its tariffs on its imports. The implication is that whatever they currently are at is perfect, or that at least there can be no better level. What was the rationale used in setting their current level? If it was just 'finger in the air', then any other level is presumably equally valid. If the rationale was to achieve some aim that has now changed, then the tariffs should maybe be changed.
It is easy to state what exists and to speculate about how it operates, but there seems to be no answer to whether the US should change its tariffs on its imports. The implication is that whatever they currently are at is perfect, or that at least there can be no better level. What was the rationale used in setting their current level? If it was just 'finger in the air', then any other level is presumably equally valid. If the rationale was to achieve some aim that has now changed, then the tariffs should maybe be changed.
The foolishness involved is thinking you can screw people and not expect any repercussions.
I'll treat you fairly and honestly, but if you decide to take advantage of my fairness and stick it up my rear then you should expect that good nature to change. IMO there is no reason or excuse for not have a balanced trade economy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
We are good at software and technology. How did we lose free market principle on that? The "market" is the world. If it has a need and you fulfill that, you are good to go. It is not any different than doing the same inside a country.
I didn't remotely advocate that. When I say each country decides, it means it will draw upon its strength and produce good and services are needed in the rest of the world. No one or country will be telling them that. India for example provide a ton of tech contractors to US. We didn't tell them to do that. Their government did not either.
You seem to be completely missing my point about the word 'decide'.
Companies in the US may be good at technology and software, but it doesn't follow that the US 'decided' it to be this way. If it 'decided' it, then it was not the free market. If it came about because of the operation of the markets, it was not 'decided'.
Another alternative is that the US's freedom, open culture, enlightened values and education system brought about a situation where software and technology companies in the US could develop and thrive. I think this is the case - but it was in place before software was even invented.
Umm, these relationships can be highly exploitive but yes the world in that instance is working coherently.
There’s often incentives in these instances that one could argue acted like ‘ instruction’ but who cares, what’s important is raising standards of living, education, healthcare and welfare and to that end these instances whether exploitive or not can be seen as progress .
There’s plenty of folks who would say “ why not hire from the domestic labour market” maybe we should make things fairer put tariffs on indian tech contractors and use the money raised to educated the natives so they can do these jobs.
Not me though.
You are taking that word too literally. We have collectively "decided" that technology is a good thing for advance. As such, our schools spit them out, environment and laws encourage entrepreneurship there, and money is available in the form of venture capital.
It is a conscious choice to allow this industry to continue to thrive. Or else, we could pass laws and stop the trend or completely retard it.
China's choice is to be the world's manufacturer of technology. As such, they work toward that with enablement, government support, ample labor, etc.
New Zealand has decided raising sheep for the rest of the world is good. The "free market" exists on global basis.
No ones deciding , like evolution a mutation occurs and it either provides a advantage and prospers or it fails . You then see that mutation or business replicated , trends then see sectors or species develop.
Maybe lol
I think this is part of the underlying reason of this potential tariffs war / trade war. While the obvious reason of this conflict is China's trade surplus with the U.S, the more important reason, nonetheless, like many other have already suggested, is not the numbers in the surplus, but what constitutes the surplus.
To put it more bluntly, American society does not really mind a trade surplus of importing plastic slippers or other low quality goods, but people have some serious concerns about importing a large amount of high tech components from China. (I believe it is one of the recurring themes in the MIT's PIE report).
What makes it more complicated is state intervention in China, like the former Soviet model, China's current economy is evolved from planned economy. Even though under the notion of "Capitalism with Chinese characteristics" that many things in China today look ultra-capitalistic, government's involvement still plays in big role in the business sector. For example, the government's push to develop solar panels. The invisible hand in China certainly is not the hand of the "free market," but the hand of the government.
This leads to the central question of today's trade war. The American side thinks that China is taking a "manipulative" approach to global trading and taking advantage of the "free market" system of the West.
This reading is not completely unjustified. For one, the Chinese currency is heavily manipulated. (Though the Chinese side would also argue that American economy is not that "free" either, for example, through government's subsidy, etc.)
What surprises me though is the tactics used in solving this conflict. By merely highlighting the "surplus" is both misleading and dangerous. Also, China now is the second largest economy in the world now. It is ludicrous to even slightly imagine that they would not want to develop their own technological prowess. For the American side, people may think they can stop exporting silicon chipsets to the Chinese to curtail the following import of high tech components. But will the Chinese side agree on merely manufacturing plastic slippers for another twenty-years?
I think a much better approach is focusing on our advantages, and most importantly, investing in the future, in the US, that will be the areas of software, biochem, exploratory sciences, and to further strengthen the competitive edge. By imagining rolling back to the factory-age of the 60s and 70s and wishing to take back the jobs that we have already outsourced to other countries actually is a very backward mode of thinking.
- Status
Similar threads
