|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 17:10:15 GMT
Well as the whole purpose of trade is imports the Treasury view is quite sensible - although I struggle to believe that anything that comes out of the Treasury is sensible. I am calling out Pacifico on this statement he made early in the thread. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. And i will not be drawn off course by his attempts to change the subject in the hope that we will forget his ridiculous comment. Profits and a smile on the Treasury's face comes from SALES outsizing imports. Imports COST MONEY in tariffs and transport. Other than imported raw materials used to produce something which you can sell at a profit internally or externally, the Treasury makes nothing on imported goods. It makes money on the SALE of imported goods, internally or externally. This is primary school stuff! LOL - So the US (whose economic success you were lauding 2 posts ago) exports account for 10% of their GDP - compared with 15% for imports. It is imports that give the US economy access to cheaper products and drive productivity in domestic producers. We have known this for almost 300 years.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 17:30:40 GMT
As you two herberts dont want to listen to me try listening to a Nobel prize winning economist. "Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants."Paul Krugman “What Do Undergrads Need to Know about Trade?" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 19:58:34 GMT
I've read it a few times already -- and understood it. Maybe you could be a little less vague and direct me to the specific point to which you refer. No - you still do not understand. Start again - what is the primary purpose of trade?. Adam Smith and David Ricardo might help. This is what you should be asking yourself: what is the meaning of the term "purpose"? Once you have understood it, then you can come back to me and start dropping names |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 20:11:05 GMT
As you two herberts dont want to listen to me try listening to a Nobel prize winning economist. "Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants."Paul Krugman “What Do Undergrads Need to Know about Trade?"It is a good soundbite but as with all soundbites there is massive potential for the unwashed masses to misunderstand it taken out of context You've already done it yourself "The purpose of trade is to access goods and services at cheaper rates than you can make yourself". This is absolutely not the same thing and is quite dangerous particularly when coupled with a lack of understanding or ignoring the flip side - as Krugman puts it "the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment."
International trade is a great thing when one is importing things one wants and couldn't otherwise have. Start relying on it for things one needs however, for example food for subsistence because there are no farms in the UK anymore because they were driven out of business by cheap imports, then if that source of trade dries up you have a bit of a problem on your hands. Equally running a long term trade deficit is dangerous. As Krugman puts it. Import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment. Running a trade deficit means the country is getting poorer. It cannot continue indefinitely since at some point the ability to pay weakens. It is fiscally irresponsible for a government to allow a hardcore trade deficit to persist for this reason. The treasury is right, in principle protectionism is bad, however in some cases things like tariffs are needed to prevent a loss of local capability as a result of cheap imports particularly when it comes to things we need rather than things we want. Ideally every industry would be able to compete in a tariff free world but realistically they can't because of the burdens placed upon them like minimum wage, working time directives, health and safety equipment. I'm sure like me, you'd be happy for farmers to employ workers to work their land on 50p an hour in bare feet so they could compete on a level playing field, but I've got a feeling that the vast majority wouldn't accept the government repealing all worker protection legislation in the UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 20:23:18 GMT
As you two herberts dont want to listen to me try listening to a Nobel prize winning economist. "Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants."Paul Krugman “What Do Undergrads Need to Know about Trade?"Wow, verbatim! Seriously, I didn't realise you are that literal. Krugman is explicit: By "purpose of trade" he means "what a country gains from trade;" and that, according to him, is " the ability to import things it wants." Repeat: The ability to import things a country wants. And how can a country have that ability to import things it wants? By maintaining a big economy. Now, take it from there. I'm sure you can. And I suggest; next time, you must bear in mind that you have to use the appropriate context to interpret words or terms or fragments, even, correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 21:33:08 GMT
No - you still do not understand. Start again - what is the primary purpose of trade?. Adam Smith and David Ricardo might help. This is what you should be asking yourself: what is the meaning of the term "purpose"? Once you have understood it, then you can come back to me and start dropping names When you understand get back to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 21:41:41 GMT
As you two herberts dont want to listen to me try listening to a Nobel prize winning economist. "Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants."Paul Krugman “What Do Undergrads Need to Know about Trade?"It is a good soundbite but as with all soundbites there is massive potential for the unwashed masses to misunderstand it taken out of context You've already done it yourself "The purpose of trade is to access goods and services at cheaper rates than you can make yourself". This is absolutely not the same thing and is quite dangerous particularly when coupled with a lack of understanding or ignoring the flip side - as Krugman puts it "the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment."
International trade is a great thing when one is importing things one wants and couldn't otherwise have. Start relying on it for things one needs however, for example food for subsistence because there are no farms in the UK anymore because they were driven out of business by cheap imports, then if that source of trade dries up you have a bit of a problem on your hands. Equally running a long term trade deficit is dangerous. As Krugman puts it. Import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment. Running a trade deficit means the country is getting poorer. It cannot continue indefinitely since at some point the ability to pay weakens. It is fiscally irresponsible for a government to allow a hardcore trade deficit to persist for this reason. The treasury is right, in principle protectionism is bad, however in some cases things like tariffs are needed to prevent a loss of local capability as a result of cheap imports particularly when it comes to things we need rather than things we want. Ideally every industry would be able to compete in a tariff free world but realistically they can't because of the burdens placed upon them like minimum wage, working time directives, health and safety equipment. I'm sure like me, you'd be happy for farmers to employ workers to work their land on 50p an hour in bare feet so they could compete on a level playing field, but I've got a feeling that the vast majority wouldn't accept the government repealing all worker protection legislation in the UK. Of course there are exceptions - however the amount of exceptions somewhat depends on your political stance. Personally I would make energy an exception - keeping the lights on means to me that we must be self sufficient in energy production(which we could easily do) Some others (from a different political persuasion) feel that car manufacturing is an exception and we should protect UK manufacturers from foreign competition. Others (from the free trade persuasion) see no reason (and they do have economics on their side) why you should protect any industry from foreign competition. It is all a trade off depending on your political stance. But in all cases the basic reason for trade is the same - for the consumer to access cheaper products. Which is where we came in. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 22:38:43 GMT
This is what you should be asking yourself: what is the meaning of the term "purpose"? Once you have understood it, then you can come back to me and start dropping names When you understand get back to me. Thanks, but no thanks. You're not capable of understanding the meaning of even the most basic terms. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 12, 2023 7:34:15 GMT
As you two herberts dont want to listen to me try listening to a Nobel prize winning economist. "Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants."Paul Krugman “What Do Undergrads Need to Know about Trade?"It is a good soundbite but as with all soundbites there is massive potential for the unwashed masses to misunderstand it taken out of context You've already done it yourself "The purpose of trade is to access goods and services at cheaper rates than you can make yourself". This is absolutely not the same thing and is quite dangerous particularly when coupled with a lack of understanding or ignoring the flip side - as Krugman puts it "the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment."
International trade is a great thing when one is importing things one wants and couldn't otherwise have. Start relying on it for things one needs however, for example food for subsistence because there are no farms in the UK anymore because they were driven out of business by cheap imports, then if that source of trade dries up you have a bit of a problem on your hands. Equally running a long term trade deficit is dangerous. As Krugman puts it. Import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment. Running a trade deficit means the country is getting poorer. It cannot continue indefinitely since at some point the ability to pay weakens. It is fiscally irresponsible for a government to allow a hardcore trade deficit to persist for this reason. The treasury is right, in principle protectionism is bad, however in some cases things like tariffs are needed to prevent a loss of local capability as a result of cheap imports particularly when it comes to things we need rather than things we want. Ideally every industry would be able to compete in a tariff free world but realistically they can't because of the burdens placed upon them like minimum wage, working time directives, health and safety equipment. I'm sure like me, you'd be happy for farmers to employ workers to work their land on 50p an hour in bare feet so they could compete on a level playing field, but I've got a feeling that the vast majority wouldn't accept the government repealing all worker protection legislation in the UK. While there maybe some legitimate concerns for caution of farmers being driven out of business by cheap imports, the likeliness of this happening is remote. Moreover it is often used as another tactic to scare people that is contrary to the conditioned mindset of EU-led protectionism. Let's start with an analogy of the French fashion industry in the early 1990's. Back then the French fashion industry realised they couldn't compete with clothing made in countries with lower-production costs and lower currencies. A similar problem UK farmers face and this will not change. With the predicted demise of the French fashion industry going to the wall, like farming is touted on here the industry became larger and more profitable seeking to operate with up-market 'designer' fashion accessories from perfumes to clothes. Their market is the affluent consumer. UK farming has to realise it will NEVER be the cheapest producer of food, and stop believing everyone wants cheap food. Yves Saint Laurent aren't the cheapest fashion designer accessory yet they have flourished in a market for people who want a more expensive and quality-based product. That is what the UK farming should be pitching its industry towards. The UK's largest agricultural exporter is whisky and the millions of litres it sells throughout the year around the world isn't because it's the cheapest, but because it's considered the best in the business. Wagyu beef from Japan is expensive due to limited land use similar to the UK. British beef like Angus, West Country beef, Welsh Black cattle cuts are in this end of the market and the industry can flourish like the French fashion industry did with its decision back in the 90's. It's important to remember consumers drive trade. It shouldn't be directed and lobbied solely by industries like agriculture of which many who can't operate without subsidies (unlike Australian farmers), or profits because of their own low productivity or confidence who are hesitant to opening their markets up to fellow competitors and consumers. FWIW Australia for example, cannot export enough beef to the UK to swamp the market and drive UK farmers out of business - it's main market is Asia where most of its beef is exported to. It doesn't have the capacity to produce that much meat to overtake UK farming. It also wouldn't swap market preference from Asia to UK because Asia is a bigger market, and it got burnt the last time the UK turned its back on it economically for protectionist EU. Once bitten twice shy and all that. This thread was started by Brexit-phobes, so it might be worth reminding them that the UK ran a long term deficit inside the EU, which it had to pay for and inclusive of all its bells and whistles like FoM etc. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 12, 2023 7:57:08 GMT
I am calling out Pacifico on this statement he made early in the thread. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. And i will not be drawn off course by his attempts to change the subject in the hope that we will forget his ridiculous comment. Profits and a smile on the Treasury's face comes from SALES outsizing imports. Imports COST MONEY in tariffs and transport. Other than imported raw materials used to produce something which you can sell at a profit internally or externally, the Treasury makes nothing on imported goods. It makes money on the SALE of imported goods, internally or externally. This is primary school stuff! LOL - So the US (whose economic success you were lauding 2 posts ago) exports account for 10% of their GDP - compared with 15% for imports. It is imports that give the US economy access to cheaper products and drive productivity in domestic producers. We have known this for almost 300 years. As usual you give no sources. The economic success of the USA is largely made up of military arms sales and support. It also relies heavily on the sale of technology and communications and the provision of fossil fuels. Please give a breakdown of facts across all sectors of the economy which support your statement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2023 11:30:42 GMT
It is a good soundbite but as with all soundbites there is massive potential for the unwashed masses to misunderstand it taken out of context You've already done it yourself "The purpose of trade is to access goods and services at cheaper rates than you can make yourself". This is absolutely not the same thing and is quite dangerous particularly when coupled with a lack of understanding or ignoring the flip side - as Krugman puts it "the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment."
International trade is a great thing when one is importing things one wants and couldn't otherwise have. Start relying on it for things one needs however, for example food for subsistence because there are no farms in the UK anymore because they were driven out of business by cheap imports, then if that source of trade dries up you have a bit of a problem on your hands. Equally running a long term trade deficit is dangerous. As Krugman puts it. Import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment. Running a trade deficit means the country is getting poorer. It cannot continue indefinitely since at some point the ability to pay weakens. It is fiscally irresponsible for a government to allow a hardcore trade deficit to persist for this reason. The treasury is right, in principle protectionism is bad, however in some cases things like tariffs are needed to prevent a loss of local capability as a result of cheap imports particularly when it comes to things we need rather than things we want. Ideally every industry would be able to compete in a tariff free world but realistically they can't because of the burdens placed upon them like minimum wage, working time directives, health and safety equipment. I'm sure like me, you'd be happy for farmers to employ workers to work their land on 50p an hour in bare feet so they could compete on a level playing field, but I've got a feeling that the vast majority wouldn't accept the government repealing all worker protection legislation in the UK. While there maybe some legitimate concerns for caution of farmers being driven out of business by cheap imports, the likeliness of this happening is remote. Moreover it is often used as another tactic to scare people that is contrary to the conditioned mindset of EU-led protectionism. Let's start with an analogy of the French fashion industry in the early 1990's. Back then the French fashion industry realised they couldn't compete with clothing made in countries with lower-production costs and lower currencies. A similar problem UK farmers face and this will not change. With the predicted demise of the French fashion industry going to the wall, like farming is touted on here the industry became larger and more profitable seeking to operate with up-market 'designer' fashion accessories from perfumes to clothes. Their market is the affluent consumer. UK farming has to realise it will NEVER be the cheapest producer of food, and stop believing everyone wants cheap food. Yves Saint Laurent aren't the cheapest fashion designer accessory yet they have flourished in a market for people who want a more expensive and quality-based product. That is what the UK farming should be pitching its industry towards. The UK's largest agricultural exporter is whisky and the millions of litres it sells throughout the year around the world isn't because it's the cheapest, but because it's considered the best in the business. Wagyu beef from Japan is expensive due to limited land use similar to the UK. British beef like Angus, West Country beef, Welsh Black cattle cuts are in this end of the market and the industry can flourish like the French fashion industry did with its decision back in the 90's. It's important to remember consumers drive trade. It shouldn't be directed and lobbied solely by industries like agriculture of which many who can't operate without subsidies (unlike Australian farmers), or profits because of their own low productivity or confidence who are hesitant to opening their markets up to fellow competitors and consumers. FWIW Australia for example, cannot export enough beef to the UK to swamp the market and drive UK farmers out of business - it's main market is Asia where most of its beef is exported to. It doesn't have the capacity to produce that much meat to overtake UK farming. It also wouldn't swap market preference from Asia to UK because Asia is a bigger market, and it got burnt the last time the UK turned its back on it economically for protectionist EU. Once bitten twice shy and all that. Fashion belongs to the manufacturing sector so fashion houses are able to manufacture their products in cheap sites overseas if they wish. With the possible exception of Hermes or Louis Vuitton or all LVMH products, a fashion house can source materials and manufacture their goods in Bangladesh and then have them shipped back to Paris or Milan. But British farmers can't do that. Agriculture involves natural processes. You can't send British cows to a Chinese abattoir and get cheap Chinese butchers to turn them into steaks and then have them shipped back to the UK with the label "British produce cut in China" -- and expect a higher profit margin as well! Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but what you are saying is this: Let's allow cheap, no-quota imports from Australia but rebrand British beef as a luxury product and target the luxury market in order for British agriculture to survive. That is, to survive within an even smaller and a limited market and without subsidies. And then rail against the UK's overall trade deficit! You seem to have confused yourself here. According to your preceding discourse, you are promoting a very liberal, non-protectionist, import-friendly stance by remodelling British agriculture to allow cheap imports, but here on the other hand, you seem to be complaining about high imports and trade deficits. As far as trade deficits go: you sound like you're blaming our trade deficit on the EU or on our EU membership. Well, we're out of the EU now and we still have a trade deficit. And, apparently, in the quarter to February 2023, the deficit on goods widened while the surplus on services narrowed. Our trade deficit can not be viewed as an indictment of the EU or of our EU membership but as a conscious decision to alter the nature of the British economy decades ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2023 14:49:15 GMT
When you understand get back to me. Thanks, but no thanks. You're not capable of understanding the meaning of even the most basic terms. What surprises me is how many people indulge you on the forum with your pro EU obsession when you dismiss their views in this arrogant way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2023 17:26:22 GMT
Thanks, but no thanks. You're not capable of understanding the meaning of even the most basic terms. What surprises me is how many people indulge you on the forum with your pro EU obsession when you dismiss their views in this arrogant way. Whoa, a bit too personal, don't you think? Anyway.. "What surprises me is how many people indulge you..."
Well. You're giving me way too much credit. People post their views despite me. They don't indulge me. They oppose my views and they like posting their opposing views. I'd like to think that this is because the topics I open are thought-provoking. "With your pro EU obsession...."Slow down -- it's not so much pro-EU obsession as a mildly passionate hatred for and of the Tory version of Brexit. "When you dismiss their views in this arrogant way."I have a problem with this because (a) On the contrary, I do not dismiss other people's views. I dismiss gormless remarks. I respond to (also read: argue against) their views as a mark of consideration and regard. (b) I give as good as I get. If that's arrogance, then Tough! Believe me, it is a prerequisite skill when having discussions with Brexit fundamentalists. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 12, 2023 19:17:55 GMT
Now we have an argument about an argument.
Which has nothing to do with the title of the thread.
A bientot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 12, 2023 22:56:13 GMT
Thanks, but no thanks. You're not capable of understanding the meaning of even the most basic terms. What surprises me is how many people indulge you on the forum with your pro EU obsession when you dismiss their views in this arrogant way. Doesn't surprise me, gnome is more than a typical remainiac, he's Anna Soubry level remainiac. For him there's no hope, he will never again realise happiness unless the UK is once more governed from Belgium. In my world Quisling's like gnome would be given the choice of moving to their beloved EU or internment. He should of course be imprisoned, but I've always been a softy at heart. |
|
