[Biggus Robbus]

Sounds like a Tory wet dream.

[Biggus Robbus]

To be fair to Andy the WTO is a Tory wet dream of globalisation.

The EU is a defence against that model.

[Timbo]

No it isn't. Look at the recent rice tarrifs imposed by the EU on Myanmar and Cambodia. It's naked protectionism which fucks the poorest.

[youngian]

No it isn't. Look at the recent rice tariffs imposed by the EU on Myanmar and Cambodia. It's naked protectionism which fucks the poorest.

Have you link for that move? If its true its not protectionism as the EU has no rice growing industries to protect. The main motive is to create leverage to negotiate with protectionist economies. South Korean probably has a tariff-free FTA for rice with the EU as they have lowered barriers against stuff that the EU want to export to them. What would South Korea's motivation be to negotiate if you offer the same tariff-free deal to rice-growing country that keeps tariffs on EU goods?

[Timbo]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-tr ... KKCN1PA2AY

Apparently there has been a flood of supply from these countries, and apparently is in protection of domestic EU-grown rice (who knew? ). However, it still ultimately harms consumer and supplier.

[youngian]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-tr ... KKCN1PA2AY

Apparently there has been a flood of supply from these countries, and apparently is in protection of domestic EU-grown rice (who knew? ). However, it still ultimately harms consumer and supplier.

I was wrong on that one it is a protectionist measure. I had no idea Bulgaria and Portugal grow rice. Not that agriculture has ever just been about free market trade in most countries.

The decision, which will be in effect for three years, follows a “safeguard” investigation launched last March after a request from the Italian government. Rice is grown in eight southern European countries from Portugal to Bulgaria.

Cambodia and Myanmar benefit from the EU’s “Everything But Arms” scheme which allows the world’s least developed countries to export most goods to the European Union free of duties. But the Commission said its investigation had confirmed that a significant increase in imports of longer-grained Indica rice from Cambodia and Myanmar had damaged EU producers.

[Biggus Robbus]

No it isn't. Look at the recent rice tarrifs imposed by the EU on Myanmar and Cambodia. It's naked protectionism which fucks the poorest.

I think you miss my point. I suppose the EU can be protectionist, after all it hit back against Trump.

My issue is admitting countries in the WTO, with guaranteeing workers rights in all WTO member states, is a recipe for discontent.

Capitalist shits will argue that hard fought for labour rights will have to be removed to "compete" with countries that have limited labour rights.

Poor sods who see their job outsourced to poorer countries are at risk of being temped by the fear and resentment messages of Farage et al.

At least the EU has the Social Chapter and provides other rights.

The WTO has got as far as discussing worker rights but really has no way of enforcing them. The has been some discussion on inserting a social clause into the WTO agreement. However that's all it is thus far.

*edit - With regards to Andy's point yesterday about enjoying tablets and smartphones. I was thinking more in line with high value devices such as Apple and Samsung. Yes they could be made in the West. The really low end stuff well yes we enjoy that product from China really can only come from low cost economies.

[Bones McCoy]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-tr ... KKCN1PA2AY

Apparently there has been a flood of supply from these countries, and apparently is in protection of domestic EU-grown rice (who knew? ). However, it still ultimately harms consumer and supplier.

There's a bit down in the south of France, Camargue region.
I thought it was all risotto type rice form France.

[Timbo]

No it isn't. Look at the recent rice tarrifs imposed by the EU on Myanmar and Cambodia. It's naked protectionism which fucks the poorest.

I think you miss my point. I suppose the EU can be protectionist, after all it hit back against Trump.

My issue is admitting countries in the WTO, with guaranteeing workers rights in all WTO member states, is a recipe for discontent.

Capitalist shits will argue that hard fought for labour rights will have to be removed to "compete" with countries that have limited labour rights.

Poor sods who see their job outsourced to poorer countries are at risk of being temped by the fear and resentment messages of Farage et al.

At least the EU has the Social Chapter and provides other rights.

The WTO has got as far as discussing worker rights but really has no way of enforcing them. The has been some discussion on inserting a social clause into the WTO agreement. However that's all it is thus far.

*edit - With regards to Andy's point yesterday about enjoying tablets and smartphones. I was thinking more in line with high value devices such as Apple and Samsung. Yes they could be made in the West. The really low end stuff well yes we enjoy that product from China really can only come from low cost economies.

Buying less from poor countries isn't going to make them richer, much less make them likely to up wages and improve working conditions. This is cart before horse logic, whereas in reality the demand follows the supply; where cheap labour is available it will be utilised. Decrying globalisation because of poor working conditions in poor countries is just a supercilious version of Trump's MAGA nonsense.

[Biggus Robbus]

Poor versus rich. That is the basic argument.

Maybe we should start fighting for labour rights in poorer countries so we are on a level playing field?

[Timbo]

It isn't poor versus rich, or anything so dramatic. The reality is much more banal and nihilistic.
Forcing better wages and working conditions wouldn't put poor countries on a level playing field. Production would just move. The labour market follows the path of least resistance. It all evens out in the end, and the rising tide eventually lifts all boats. Wealth is not only generated by the financial value of production, but also by lowering the cost (and thereby increasing the access) to goods. Globalisation allows the world to find the most efficient way to produce things, and thereby allow the lowest cost per unit of utility for those goods.

[Biggus Robbus]

Globalisation only works if socialists have at least some say.

[Timbo]

That's an issue for individual governments. Free global trade (or the WTO approximation of it) isn't a left/right issue. If people in poor countries want socialist governments to give them more rights, they are certainly well within their rights to elect them. If those rights then make a nation's labour uncompetitive, then eventually once a producer runs out of cheaper places to manufacture they will build the products closest to the people who consume them. Then the people in the poor countries have rights but no labour, everything gets built in Western factories by Western workers. People around the world can afford less of those goods, diminishing aggregate utility, and the rich stay rich while the poor stay poor. Social democracy requires some actual economic activity to raise tax revenue from. Socialism is many great things, but it can't make a poor country rich.

[Biggus Robbus]

Okay I have a raging hard on so I will have to go away and think about this.

[Kreuzberger]

Okay I have a raging hard on so I will have to go away and think about this.

My response to spontaneous arousal is neither intellectual nor philosophical.