"...in a move that could flood the market with cheap goods" - perish the thought! Thank goodness people are stopping this sick filth!
-
-
-
In fairness - everyone should be in favour of incrementalism in this kind of policy. Tariff reductions like this should have like a ten year horizon on them so businesses can adapt smoothly and so it doesn’t just render huge chunks of capital worthless over night.
-
If the capital is worthless without tariffs it is probably objectively worthless. Instead of prolonging it's existence for ten years isn't it better to abolish tariffs tomorrow. There's something to be said about giving workers some time and/or support to adapt to the new reality
-
But with them the problem isn't economics, rather politics & social unrest. Abolishing tariffs with ten years' warning is hard: who could've predicted Brexit in 2009? Or the Scottish independence referendum in 2004? New Labour thought that there will be English devolution by 2007
-
If the last thirty years have shown anything in economics it’s that distributional consequences really matter. There is no such thing as ‘objective value’. Profit from government subsidy is still profit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So NFU supports the Corn Laws - who knew? Being 'flooded by cheap imports' should be an objective of trade policy. There is a case for trade protection measures in specific areas if there is clear evidence of dumping - but overall, protectionist tariffs damage consumer welfare.
-
Isn't dumping just even more flooding of cheap goods? It's transfer of wealth. Maybe better to not do export subsidies but just transfer the money directly into UK back accounts if the Chinese/Americans/whoever want to send money
-
Logically, yes - 'dumping' (as recognised by WTO) is still a wealth transfer to consumers. Still, I think trade associations would be on stronger ground supporting temporary/targetted defence measures than opposing unilateral free trade in general, as appears to be the case here.
-
But it isn't really a defense when you're just taxing domestic consumers to make sure they can't benefit from foreign export subsidies. It's rather flagellantic. That said government's shouldn't be subsidizing exports in the first place.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
>Patrick Minford “unilaterally cut tariffs” >IEA “unilaterally cut tariffs” >me “lol no government would ever do that” >Liam Fox “think again bucko”
@CAmoils Maybe the IEA does run the world... Dreams really do come true
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is the suggestion here that the people of the U.K. should take constitutional decisions based on what’s best for the ceramics industry?!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interestingly enough, the burden of the agricultural tariffs is disproportionately borne by the poor, since the spend higher % of their earnings on food.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We are being ripped off - that’s why we want to leave!! Support the products we do produce ( open the global gates and bring prices down on everything else ? )
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
*"greatly harmed"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Amazing to see all these people suddenly become concerned with the fate of business and deeply committed to protecting farmers, after many years of intensely anti-business and anti-farming policy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.