6 ms·

If you are an European, regulation also has the benefit to induce soft protectionism from countries that are less keen on consumer and environment protection. T

If you are an European, regulation also has the benefit to induce soft protectionism from countries that are less keen on consumer and environment protection. This is the heart of the debate about Mercorsur, as it creates an unfair competition by lowering regulation (in theory european regulation applies but in practice it's harder to verify), and also an internal debate in France related to some pesticide that other European countries can use. Some argue that we should allow the pesticide, some that we should stop importing products that are exposed to it.

0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
Why not just have a single regulation, that products must be clearly labeled by their country of origin, and let consumers decide the rest?
- dbdr 10mo ago
  Maybe because people don't have unlimited amount of time to keep up-to-date on all data and research on toxicity, negative health effects, safety, etc on tens of thousands of products from a couple hundred countries.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
    Any product could apply for regulatory approval in the country where it is being sold. If the product does not get regulatory approval, it could be sold in a special shop, so customers are aware that they are taking a risk. That lets customers choose for themselves whether they want to take the risk.
- StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
  Because people don't look at country of origin. They are mostly price sensitive. If you allow imports from countries with looser regulations, you are basically putting your own sectors at a competitive disavantage in your own market. It's akin to killing it basically. It's obviously extremely stupid but in the case of the Mercosur agreement, predictably Germany doesn't care because the agribusiness is in France and they themselves will be able to export their cars. Generally speaking, Germany never cares about deeply shafting the rest of the union when it gives them a small advantage. See also how their economy is deeply unbalanced, they have under invested for decades and they only survive because they are part of a monetary union devoid of a fiscal union giving them the tremendous advantage of an undervalued currency at the expense of basically every southern members. See also how they made joining the currency union mandatory for entering the common market and are pushing for adding more poor eastern countries to exploit which also conveniently vote for the EPP and dillute any chance the southern countries could ally to oppose them. Obviously, the currency union has no clear path to exit it.
  - throw-the-towel 10mo ago
    Genuine question, how does adding more Eastern countries help Germany?
    - StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
      1. More euro using countries with weaker economies ensure the euro stay as low as possible which is insanely advantageous for Germany, a country which has built all its economy on exports. Plus it provides a new outcome for the German excess savings via credits which will amplify the unbalancing created by the monetary policies and add a vicious extractive cycle on top. 2. These countries tend to prioritise their immediate safety from Russia to any economical considerations and are strongly NATO aligned. They have historically voted for parties which are close to the EPP, the currently dominant European party which is itself controlled by and subservient to German interests. See how Von Der Leyen was basically saved by Poland in 2024. This ensure the EPP remains the dominant force in Europe and significantly dilutes the voices of countries strongly disavantaged by how the eurozone is working and which could be tempted to ally to try to push reforms (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, France). Generally, expension strongly favours the current status quo, itself extremely favourable to Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
        I'm confused, Europeans on HN are always telling me how NATO is a big scheme the US uses to keep the dollar strong. Now you're telling me the EPP is a big scheme from Germany to keep the euro weak. Something's not adding up.
        StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
        The EPP is a political party not a scheme but yes, Germany benefits immensely from a weak euro as a net exporter and the way the eurozone is structured, as a monetary union without a fiscal union, and how it operates, roughly with transfers being very limited, a big no no for the population of the advantaged countries if not an impossibility considering the historical rulings of the German constitutional court, ensure it stays this way. I have no personal opinion on NATO being a big scheme to keep the dollar strong. I personally think its creation had more to do with limiting the spread of the USSR and ensuring the former European empires remained in vassal positions following the second world war. Still, as a net importer, the USA generally benefits from a strong dollar. The dollar is in a fairly unique position anyway as it remains the internation reserve currency. I fail to see what's not adding up here personnaly. Replying to inglor_cz here because dang rate limited me because one of my post about Rust was apparently grounded but written in what dang considers a "flamebaity" way while being highly upvoted: To me, that's a deep misrepresentation of the systemic issue at stake. Germany didn't magically happen to have strong exports while it became an issue for France and Italy. That's a structural feature of the monetary union. The euro was always going to be weaker that the DM and stronger than the Lira. That gives an inherent advantage to Germany and conversely deeply disavantage Italy. That's why there never was a currency union without transfers in history before the euro. It plainly can't work. What Mitterand and Delor did was take a gamble. They pushed for an unsustainable currency union hoping it would extend to a fully featured fiscal union when a crisis inevitably came. Sadly, that's not what happened when said crisis came and we are now stuck with a setup which is either slowly erroding the competitivity of the periphery or forcing it into pro-cycle austerity in the name of a political doctrine it never chose while it favors a few core countries widely misallocating their excess savings while pretending to be virtuous. Our saving grace It's obviously completely unsustainable hence the constant rise of extremist parties in the perepheric countries but like a good quasi-neocolonial setup, you will see a lot of people actually defend it with arguments which are roughly the same as the one the empires used to use: leaving will be economical ruin, the alternative is chaos, you obviously can't manage your economy without us. It's no surprise the strongest industrial player in the EU is becoming Poland. It is because they are out of the euro. Look at how while they are theorically forced to join by the treaty, they are doing everything they can to stay out. Amusingly, we might all end up being saved by Trump because tariffs on top of two decades of systemic underinvestements have put the German economy so out of balance, we might finally witness the end of ordoliberalism.
- troupo 10mo ago
  The EU already has country of origin requirements. They still had to specify things like "X% of the product has to be made in country Y to be qualified for the 'made in Y' label". And even that can and does get muddy.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
    For the purpose of this discussion, the % made in country Y doesn't matter--the important thing is whether the product is compliant with regulations in country Y.
- vladms 10mo ago
  Using the same idea, are you personally for legalizing all drugs as well or not requiring doctors to be licensed? Because I think there are lots of things forbidden/regulated across the world, mostly because people do not to make (or are not able to make due to lack of information) the best decisions for them, and then society suffers as a whole. Me personally, if I have to choose between food 10% cheaper that will give 1 in 1000 people a cancer, or eating something more local/boring I prefer the latter, even if I would never buy it myself.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
    I already stated in this thread that I'm in favor of smart regulation, not zero regulation. For example, instead of government licensing of doctors, I would be interested in a more elegant solution like requiring all doctors to carry malpractice insurance and publish information about the insurance rate they're currently paying. If graduating from a particular medical school is truly associated with reduced malpractice rates, that should be reflected in lower insurance rates for those doctors. Insurers would design their own exams which would probably be better than government licensing exams since insurers have skin in the game.
    - vladms 10mo ago
      The problem is the "root of trust". Someone has to decide if it was "malpractice" or not. The doctor (and the insurer) have the interest to say "it was the best service we could provide", and even if you involve a lawsuit/judge/etc., they will have no clue who is correct. And if you have a "root of trust", they can directly test/manage the doctors (the current system). Returning to the topic to which I responded: I prefer some organization responsible to make and check a set of rules about food, rather than each person to have to do their own research (and the first does not exclude anyhow the second). I find that smart in the sense that it will reuse knowledge of some people and will not require a lot of people learning a lot of things. I have the impression that I do care about food quality more than the average, so I am not at all worried about too strict requirements.
- eric-burel 10mo ago
  You don't let customer to decide if they love pesticide or not, their are basic functions even to a minimal state and environment and health protection is among them.
sophrosyne42 10mo ago
Realistically, the reason the EU is a customs union and not a trade union is because they need to implement protectionist policies to prevent their imdustry from being outcompeted by countries which don't suffer from these regulations.

0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago

Why not just have a single regulation, that products must be clearly labeled by their country of origin, and let consumers decide the rest?

dbdr 10mo ago
Maybe because people don't have unlimited amount of time to keep up-to-date on all data and research on toxicity, negative health effects, safety, etc on tens of thousands of products from a couple hundred countries.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
  Any product could apply for regulatory approval in the country where it is being sold. If the product does not get regulatory approval, it could be sold in a special shop, so customers are aware that they are taking a risk. That lets customers choose for themselves whether they want to take the risk.
StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
Because people don't look at country of origin. They are mostly price sensitive. If you allow imports from countries with looser regulations, you are basically putting your own sectors at a competitive disavantage in your own market. It's akin to killing it basically. It's obviously extremely stupid but in the case of the Mercosur agreement, predictably Germany doesn't care because the agribusiness is in France and they themselves will be able to export their cars. Generally speaking, Germany never cares about deeply shafting the rest of the union when it gives them a small advantage. See also how their economy is deeply unbalanced, they have under invested for decades and they only survive because they are part of a monetary union devoid of a fiscal union giving them the tremendous advantage of an undervalued currency at the expense of basically every southern members. See also how they made joining the currency union mandatory for entering the common market and are pushing for adding more poor eastern countries to exploit which also conveniently vote for the EPP and dillute any chance the southern countries could ally to oppose them. Obviously, the currency union has no clear path to exit it.
- throw-the-towel 10mo ago
  Genuine question, how does adding more Eastern countries help Germany?
  - StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
    1. More euro using countries with weaker economies ensure the euro stay as low as possible which is insanely advantageous for Germany, a country which has built all its economy on exports. Plus it provides a new outcome for the German excess savings via credits which will amplify the unbalancing created by the monetary policies and add a vicious extractive cycle on top. 2. These countries tend to prioritise their immediate safety from Russia to any economical considerations and are strongly NATO aligned. They have historically voted for parties which are close to the EPP, the currently dominant European party which is itself controlled by and subservient to German interests. See how Von Der Leyen was basically saved by Poland in 2024. This ensure the EPP remains the dominant force in Europe and significantly dilutes the voices of countries strongly disavantaged by how the eurozone is working and which could be tempted to ally to try to push reforms (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, France). Generally, expension strongly favours the current status quo, itself extremely favourable to Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
      I'm confused, Europeans on HN are always telling me how NATO is a big scheme the US uses to keep the dollar strong. Now you're telling me the EPP is a big scheme from Germany to keep the euro weak. Something's not adding up.
      - StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
        The EPP is a political party not a scheme but yes, Germany benefits immensely from a weak euro as a net exporter and the way the eurozone is structured, as a monetary union without a fiscal union, and how it operates, roughly with transfers being very limited, a big no no for the population of the advantaged countries if not an impossibility considering the historical rulings of the German constitutional court, ensure it stays this way. I have no personal opinion on NATO being a big scheme to keep the dollar strong. I personally think its creation had more to do with limiting the spread of the USSR and ensuring the former European empires remained in vassal positions following the second world war. Still, as a net importer, the USA generally benefits from a strong dollar. The dollar is in a fairly unique position anyway as it remains the internation reserve currency. I fail to see what's not adding up here personnaly. Replying to inglor_cz here because dang rate limited me because one of my post about Rust was apparently grounded but written in what dang considers a "flamebaity" way while being highly upvoted: To me, that's a deep misrepresentation of the systemic issue at stake. Germany didn't magically happen to have strong exports while it became an issue for France and Italy. That's a structural feature of the monetary union. The euro was always going to be weaker that the DM and stronger than the Lira. That gives an inherent advantage to Germany and conversely deeply disavantage Italy. That's why there never was a currency union without transfers in history before the euro. It plainly can't work. What Mitterand and Delor did was take a gamble. They pushed for an unsustainable currency union hoping it would extend to a fully featured fiscal union when a crisis inevitably came. Sadly, that's not what happened when said crisis came and we are now stuck with a setup which is either slowly erroding the competitivity of the periphery or forcing it into pro-cycle austerity in the name of a political doctrine it never chose while it favors a few core countries widely misallocating their excess savings while pretending to be virtuous. Our saving grace It's obviously completely unsustainable hence the constant rise of extremist parties in the perepheric countries but like a good quasi-neocolonial setup, you will see a lot of people actually defend it with arguments which are roughly the same as the one the empires used to use: leaving will be economical ruin, the alternative is chaos, you obviously can't manage your economy without us. It's no surprise the strongest industrial player in the EU is becoming Poland. It is because they are out of the euro. Look at how while they are theorically forced to join by the treaty, they are doing everything they can to stay out. Amusingly, we might all end up being saved by Trump because tariffs on top of two decades of systemic underinvestements have put the German economy so out of balance, we might finally witness the end of ordoliberalism.
troupo 10mo ago
The EU already has country of origin requirements. They still had to specify things like "X% of the product has to be made in country Y to be qualified for the 'made in Y' label". And even that can and does get muddy.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
  For the purpose of this discussion, the % made in country Y doesn't matter--the important thing is whether the product is compliant with regulations in country Y.
vladms 10mo ago
Using the same idea, are you personally for legalizing all drugs as well or not requiring doctors to be licensed? Because I think there are lots of things forbidden/regulated across the world, mostly because people do not to make (or are not able to make due to lack of information) the best decisions for them, and then society suffers as a whole. Me personally, if I have to choose between food 10% cheaper that will give 1 in 1000 people a cancer, or eating something more local/boring I prefer the latter, even if I would never buy it myself.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
  I already stated in this thread that I'm in favor of smart regulation, not zero regulation. For example, instead of government licensing of doctors, I would be interested in a more elegant solution like requiring all doctors to carry malpractice insurance and publish information about the insurance rate they're currently paying. If graduating from a particular medical school is truly associated with reduced malpractice rates, that should be reflected in lower insurance rates for those doctors. Insurers would design their own exams which would probably be better than government licensing exams since insurers have skin in the game.
  - vladms 10mo ago
    The problem is the "root of trust". Someone has to decide if it was "malpractice" or not. The doctor (and the insurer) have the interest to say "it was the best service we could provide", and even if you involve a lawsuit/judge/etc., they will have no clue who is correct. And if you have a "root of trust", they can directly test/manage the doctors (the current system). Returning to the topic to which I responded: I prefer some organization responsible to make and check a set of rules about food, rather than each person to have to do their own research (and the first does not exclude anyhow the second). I find that smart in the sense that it will reuse knowledge of some people and will not require a lot of people learning a lot of things. I have the impression that I do care about food quality more than the average, so I am not at all worried about too strict requirements.
eric-burel 10mo ago
You don't let customer to decide if they love pesticide or not, their are basic functions even to a minimal state and environment and health protection is among them.

sophrosyne42 10mo ago

Realistically, the reason the EU is a customs union and not a trade union is because they need to implement protectionist policies to prevent their imdustry from being outcompeted by countries which don't suffer from these regulations.