7 ms·

This is why free trade is important. We had a decent setup where countries were specializing in their own manufacturing/services specialties, and then we all pa

by BowBun 20d ago

This is why free trade is important. We had a decent setup where countries were specializing in their own manufacturing/services specialties, and then we all paid each other for what we needed. Then some greedy fools decided they needed more, and started trying to charge more on the way out or on the way in. Now the ones that specialized in the 'must haves' of today have insane leverage over everyone else. Then the 'easy' answer is to prevent those goods from coming into your country. It's all so incredibly shortsighted, it deflates me.

LoganDark 20d ago
What are you saying? If people all choose a shitty version from China, there will be no market for a good local version and businesses will stop trying. The investment required to match China's manufacturing capability in any area is simply impossible unless you say it is an AI data center.
- agileAlligator 19d ago
  on what basis do you claim the local product is "good" if people are not choosing it?
  - IAmBroom 19d ago
    You can manipulate the meaning of "good" to suit your purpose, but it generally refers to quality. Cost is a different aspect entirely. A one-dollar scoop of ice cream and a $100 scoop are both good.
    - deleted 19d ago
      [deleted]
    - agileAlligator 18d ago
      What is "quality"? What is the objective test of it? I have made my definition clear: if people are choosing a product consistently, it must be of some value to them. What is your definition?
- BowBun 17d ago
  Real life isn't just "the shitty version from China", especially in 2026. Some of their products are better, some are worse. Nearly _all_ of our clothing comes from Asia, from low to high-end brands. I'm saying there's value in specializing, not every country needs to be able to make everything. The real issue is people weaponizing their specializations, in this case specifically the USA with its stupid trade moves.
somenameforme 20d ago
The reality of the world is that when the US sets e.g. environmental or labor standards, we basically end up offshoring the affected industries to other places. Because those standards increase the cost of production which makes it more economical to produce stuff in a country that doesn't have such standards. With completely free trade, everything would be made in whichever country has the lowest standards, which is rather contrary to the implied values when passing environmental and labor standards in the first place. You could then try to make laws that countries we import from must abide certain standards, but just gets gamed endlessly. For instance cacao/chocolate makes extensive use of child slavery [1]. There have been numerous lawsuits over this until the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that you could no longer sue Nestle/Cargill/Hershey/etc over child slavery in their supply lines. They were being sued because their oversight came down to asking, 'Hey you're not using child labor right?' 'Nah.' 'Cheers then, carry on.' When a company's goal is to not see something, they do a very good job of becoming blind. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti...
- nl 20d ago
  Labor costs are orders of magnitude more than costs added by environmental or labor standards. The average hourly rate in the US is $42.50. In Vietnam is is $6.30, in the Philippines it is $5.40[1] These aren't people living in poverty - they live well. OTOH environmental legislation costs are harder to come by, but [2] estimates around 10% in a number of case studies. To be specific, that would mean US cost would be $4 less - that's still around 6 times the cost of Vietnam [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings [2] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/05/assessing-the-economic-impacts-of-environmental-policies_d55646c6/bf2fb156-en.pdf https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...
  - somenameforme 20d ago
    That paper discusses only the effect of increasing energy costs, and seems highly dubious as well. Their conclusion is that increases in energy prices would have a small effect that could even be positive. We got to see what happens after increasing energy prices since 2022. The effects have been neither modest nor positive. They studied only modest changes from the past, but they were speaking of energy costs shifts on a scale aiming to shift Earth's climate, which is not modest. The cost is going to be much more than 10%. Also the US economy is increasingly polarized so averages mislead. The median hourly is a bit under $21. [1] You also need to account for what happened to the economy after we start shipping these affected jobs overseas. That's an entire segment of the economy which is going to influence wages, consumption, and other distributions. I agree wages are always going to be a major factor, but we can also afford a premium because shipping stuff half way around the world isn't free, the broader economic impact of having less control over your supply line is itself also a significant cost, and so on. [1] - https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le

by BowBun 20d ago

LoganDark 20d ago

What are you saying? If people all choose a shitty version from China, there will be no market for a good local version and businesses will stop trying. The investment required to match China's manufacturing capability in any area is simply impossible unless you say it is an AI data center.

agileAlligator 19d ago
on what basis do you claim the local product is "good" if people are not choosing it?
- IAmBroom 19d ago
  You can manipulate the meaning of "good" to suit your purpose, but it generally refers to quality. Cost is a different aspect entirely. A one-dollar scoop of ice cream and a $100 scoop are both good.
  - deleted 19d ago
    [deleted]
  - agileAlligator 18d ago
    What is "quality"? What is the objective test of it? I have made my definition clear: if people are choosing a product consistently, it must be of some value to them. What is your definition?
BowBun 17d ago
Real life isn't just "the shitty version from China", especially in 2026. Some of their products are better, some are worse. Nearly _all_ of our clothing comes from Asia, from low to high-end brands. I'm saying there's value in specializing, not every country needs to be able to make everything. The real issue is people weaponizing their specializations, in this case specifically the USA with its stupid trade moves.

somenameforme 20d ago

The reality of the world is that when the US sets e.g. environmental or labor standards, we basically end up offshoring the affected industries to other places. Because those standards increase the cost of production which makes it more economical to produce stuff in a country that doesn't have such standards. With completely free trade, everything would be made in whichever country has the lowest standards, which is rather contrary to the implied values when passing environmental and labor standards in the first place. You could then try to make laws that countries we import from must abide certain standards, but just gets gamed endlessly. For instance cacao/chocolate makes extensive use of child slavery [1]. There have been numerous lawsuits over this until the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that you could no longer sue Nestle/Cargill/Hershey/etc over child slavery in their supply lines. They were being sued because their oversight came down to asking, 'Hey you're not using child labor right?' 'Nah.' 'Cheers then, carry on.' When a company's goal is to not see something, they do a very good job of becoming blind. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti...

nl 20d ago
Labor costs are orders of magnitude more than costs added by environmental or labor standards. The average hourly rate in the US is $42.50. In Vietnam is is $6.30, in the Philippines it is $5.40[1] These aren't people living in poverty - they live well. OTOH environmental legislation costs are harder to come by, but [2] estimates around 10% in a number of case studies. To be specific, that would mean US cost would be $4 less - that's still around 6 times the cost of Vietnam [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings [2] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/05/assessing-the-economic-impacts-of-environmental-policies_d55646c6/bf2fb156-en.pdf https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...
- somenameforme 20d ago
  That paper discusses only the effect of increasing energy costs, and seems highly dubious as well. Their conclusion is that increases in energy prices would have a small effect that could even be positive. We got to see what happens after increasing energy prices since 2022. The effects have been neither modest nor positive. They studied only modest changes from the past, but they were speaking of energy costs shifts on a scale aiming to shift Earth's climate, which is not modest. The cost is going to be much more than 10%. Also the US economy is increasingly polarized so averages mislead. The median hourly is a bit under $21. [1] You also need to account for what happened to the economy after we start shipping these affected jobs overseas. That's an entire segment of the economy which is going to influence wages, consumption, and other distributions. I agree wages are always going to be a major factor, but we can also afford a premium because shipping stuff half way around the world isn't free, the broader economic impact of having less control over your supply line is itself also a significant cost, and so on. [1] - https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le