Re:Airbus buys majority stake in Bombardier CSeries passenge...
by cbhl on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @11:31PM
(#15496695)
> It's not only the quality of the products that compete, it's living standards, health laws, worker protection, environmental protection, social welfare, healthcare, educations and human rights that compete.
Canada has single-payer ("free") health care, and plans to introduce a national carbon tax. There's a narrow socio-economic gap in school results[0].
Tell me again how the United States has better health care, environmental protection, and education?
Re:Airbus buys majority stake in Bombardier CSeries passenge...
by kpil on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @04:01AM
(#15497595)
No, the tariffs should be pointed in the other direction.
It is however probably not efficient for a smaller economical power to set up tariffs like that.
But I think the problem is more related to China, India and other upcoming "tigers".
Re:Airbus buys majority stake in Bombardier CSeries passenge...
by andy_ppp on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @04:12AM
(#15497621)
Look I bet you in 10-20 years time workers rights and wages will have harmonised between east and west but places like Shengzen will continue to be the best place to build electronics. People claim slave wages but I think they forget how much shitter being a rural farm worker is... most of those working in these factories could go back to picking tea or rice for 14h per day but I bet they prefer the clothes factory.
It's not only the quality of the products that compete, it's living standards, health laws, worker protection, environmental protection, social welfare, healthcare, educations and human rights that compete.
If I live in a (economically) large enough country that trades with another country that fail providing reasonable levels of all of the above for their own people, mostly to the gain of some oligark or another, there is little reason to offer totally free trade.
An optimal tariff, possibly even invested back in the originating country - or even used to fund healthcare or education - is most likely globally less maximized in term of number of cheap items per dollar, but could still help stimulate both economies, maybe help the poorest, and hopefully avoiding a race to the bottom for the 99%.
[edit]... This doesn't mean that a 300% tariff on airplanes is justified between EU, US and Canada. Or maybe we in EU can fund your healthcare if you just buy from Airbus in the future...