[jstanley]

Imposing tariffs on imports is classic protectionism - are you actually arguing that that is a net benefit?

Of course the protected industries benefit from protectionism, the argument against protectionism is that everyone else loses.

There is no reason that a transaction with a counterparty in Shanghai should incur any more taxes than an equivalent transaction with a counterparty in Manchester.

[CPLX]

> Imposing tariffs on imports is classic protectionism - are you actually arguing that that is a net benefit?

Not sure if it's a net benefit. And neither are you. But there are certainly winners and losers.

Protectionism for European agriculture has made Europe a positively lovely place to live. Have you seen it? I recommend the south of France.

> Of course the protected industries benefit from protectionism, the argument against protectionism is that everyone else loses.

I have a degree in economics, the concept hasn't escaped me.

Noticing that having protections evaporate overnight could have massive negative consequences for many is pretty relevant.

> There is no reason that a transaction with a counterparty in Shanghai should incur any more taxes than an equivalent transaction with a counterparty in Manchester.

If it just happens to turn Manchester into an economic wasteland where the daughters of England are sold into prostitution and working men beg for scraps of food in the street, then those are two reasons.

I get the argument you're making. It's a style of economic conversation where you assume frictionless perfect markets and rational allocations of resources. Those of us that actually understand how economic systems work moved on from that sort of simplistic line of thinking generations ago.

[Hupriene]

Protecting agriculture can also serve to reduce the impact that the war or large scale crop failures elsewhere in the world might bring. The resulting safety might be worth the market inefficiencies caused by tariffs.

[kennywinker]

> are you actually arguing that that is a net benefit?

Net benefit to who? Global capital efficiency, people?

Jobs going overeseas to countries with lower wages and less safty/environmental/etc. regulation has been a net loss for humanity... but it has been a major win for capitol!

[jstanley]

Why is it a net loss to humanity if a person in a poor country does the job instead of a person in your country? They're people too.

[kennywinker]

The lack of safety and environmental regulations, specifically.

Also the wages thing, but I understand that is a more nuanced issue, so let’s set it aside for a moment.

[yongjik]

This would have made the oddest pro-Brexit argument ever.

"Sure it will personally suck for you the British farmer, but think about the benefit to the avocado farmers in Chile. Brexit for Chile!"

[jstanley]

It's not just the avocado farmers in Chile, it's also the avocado purchasers in the UK.

[jimnotgym]

If they come from Chile then there is likely no tariff into the EU due to the FTA. Perhaps you could drop the FUD?

https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/25/brexit-mps-tweet-about-foreig...

[jstanley]

I didn't bring up Chile, my parent did. Replace "Chile" in our comments with "arbitrary country X" if you prefer.

[jimnotgym]

arbitrary country x, apart from all the ones that already have FTA with the EU I suppose.

It is complete FUD

[CPLX]

If the society you live in today decided to expropriate all of the money and resources owned by a randomly selected 5% of the population, so that 5% of the population was instantly destitute, but then distributed those resources evenly to everyone else, would you consider that society better off, worse off, or pretty much the same as the day before that happened?

[jstanley]

Stealing 5% of people's money is not OK.

Stopping 5% of people from stealing other people's money is a good thing, but might easily be confused with the first thing.

[CPLX]

It's just a factual question.

And it illustrates a basic concept, which is that redistributing money isn't value-neutral. Some distributions are better for society than others.

You can't just say free trade takes money from this group and gives it to that group and perhaps ekes out a modest efficiency gain and conclude your analysis there.

It matters who wins and who loses, and by how much.

[jimnotgym]

> Imposing tariffs on imports is classic protectionism

Protectionism is the wrong word when you are talking about food supplies. Tariffs are applied selectively to food imports in most countries, to protect farming for food security. Food matters more to people than watered down Randian ideology, once there is a shortage.

[tomp]

> are you actually arguing that that is a net benefit?

Depends on what you define as net benefit... Self-sufficiency, especially regarding basic supplies like food, is hugely important for any independent nation. Personally, tariffs on/protectionism of food industry are what I support the most.

Broader picture, net benefit doesn't mean just economic benefit. I support Trump's tariffs on China and hope EU would do the same, tax the hell out of all polluting and tax-evading countries - that would definitely be a net benefit for the planet.

[OscarCunningham]

Only if the tariffs were clearly linked to polluting and tax-evading. Otherwise they provide no incentive to stop. I don't believe Trump has linked his tariffs to pollution or tax-evasion. He's been talking about China's industrial subsidies, monetary policy and intellectual property theft.

Simply sanctioning bad countries isn't good in itself, unless it forces them to become better.

[tomp]

Indeed, but most nations/governments are so deeply entrenched in "free trade" that they can't just transition directly to "fair trade" (for some definition of "fair"...) without going through the "no free trade" stage first. Anyways, let's hope it continues in this direction and doesn't derail along the way.