French protectionists have no shame...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The only one who seems to be significantly down and not tied to the failure of communist era industries is the UK. I'm not quit sure why that is though I suspect the death of the UK's coal industry has something to do with it (the government tried to privatize it and then watched virtually all of it go belly up in the very early 90's).

It was intentional and was related to breaking Union poweres. They Tories never really cared about maintaining an inefficient coal mining industry.

The UK's drop in greenhouse gases is also not mainly due to a cut in CO2, but rather its the carbon equivalent of other greenhouses gases which has decreased.

[Victor Galis]

The further point Oerdin seems to miss is that even those European countries whose emissions have increased have done so at a far slower pace than the US.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Hmm?

Originally posted by pchang
That they aren't getting from the EU.....

He was talking about China closing all of its borders, as I read it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Maniac
As usual, you just start insulting because you are unable to give a decent argumented answer.

If you find that insulting you've got to be the touchiest poster on Apolyton.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Partly true of course, but what the economists believing in simplistic free trade theories always forget is that there exists something as unemployment. Free trade is only assured to be beneficial in countries where no employment exists. For the EU this is obviously not the case; there is lots of unemployment. As producing in the EU is no doubt more expensive than elsewhere, prices for certain products will rise and the middle class will suffer, but the former unemployed lower class people will now get an income and their consumption will rise. Btw, I'm sure prices would rise dramatically if stuff currently produced in China would be produced in NW Europe, but would this also be the case if the Chinastuff gets produced instead in Eastern Europe and other future EU candidates?? I don't see how this couldn't be beneficial to their economy. There are plenty of poor countries who would be jumping to take over low wage manufacturing (and in the case of the EU members and candidates: our rules).

You have a good point. However it's not just a case of low wages, it's also a case of infrastructure, working culture and management skills. China has low-cost producing down to a T, Eastern Europe would require years to catch up, and even then Eastern European culture is different, and it may never be able to reach the same low cost.

Moreover, with the unemployment argument, you've got to compare benefits with the potential low wages. It wouldn't affect unemployment in Western Europe, since these wages would be lower than French or German unemployment benefits.

Now, the Eastern Europe argument still holds. If the EU closed trade with China, Eastern Europe would get a huge export boost to fill the gap. But prices will still rise quite considerably. Remember due to the Common External Tariff, EE already has a huge benefit over China as a low-cost producer, yet China still produces cheaper. The only people who would gain from such a move would be semi-skilled unemployed Eastern Europeans. Everyone else would lose out considerably, and that includes the very poor in other countries and the unskilled everywhere.

Originally posted by Oerdin
The WTO will shoot that down and a coalition of countries which are effected by those tarrifs will be given legal sanction to recover damages and impose punative tarrifs on top of it. Economically it just doesn't make sense.

Firstly, the WTO won't sanction punitive damages nor allow tariffs to recover those damages. Secondly, the US is the worst country at disobeying the WTO, so it would provide leverage for enforcement. Yes, it would be struck down, but there wouldn't be any other effects.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They'd run out of critical raw materials.

The discussion was solely about the EU dependency. There's no critical resources the EU has that China can't get elsewhere.

[Kuciwalker]

The discussion was solely about the EU dependency. There's no critical resources the EU has that China can't get elsewhere.

It sounded like you were talking about China being cut off from the entire world.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If you find that insulting you've got to be the touchiest poster on Apolyton.

Perhaps it's not insulting, but it's definitely talking besides the question. Why waste everybody's time with your meaningless spam? You're not gonna get very far in life if all you can do is make some silly comment when you disagree with something someone else said.

Originally posted by Drogue
Moreover, with the unemployment argument, you've got to compare benefits with the potential low wages. It wouldn't affect unemployment in Western Europe, since these wages would be lower than French or German unemployment benefits.

Wages here would of course have to be higher than in China.

You have a good point. However it's not just a case of low wages, it's also a case of infrastructure, working culture and management skills. China has low-cost producing down to a T, Eastern Europe would require years to catch up, and even then Eastern European culture is different, and it may never be able to reach the same low cost.

You could use this argument to oppose ALL economic changes. I'm sure thirty years ago people too said China didn't have the infrastructure, working culture and management skills required for low cost production. But surely on the longer term it would benefit the EU if Eastern Europe was invested in, instead of just resigning to the present specialization patterns in the world?

Now, the Eastern Europe argument still holds. If the EU closed trade with China, Eastern Europe would get a huge export boost to fill the gap. But prices will still rise quite considerably. Remember due to the Common External Tariff, EE already has a huge benefit over China as a low-cost producer, yet China still produces cheaper.

One of the reasons why China produces cheaper is because they have bad social and environmental laws. Which is exactly why import tariffs etc would be a good idea, despite the prices rising. Just looking at the price of Chinese products is short term thinking.

The only people who would gain from such a move would be semi-skilled unemployed Eastern Europeans. Everyone else would lose out considerably, and that includes the very poor in other countries and the unskilled everywhere.

I assume semi-skilled unemployed Eastern Europeans are a rather large group. Besides, domestic consumption forms the biggest chunks of GDP, no? The newly employed would spend their wages on other products, so other sectors would see their demand rise too. Increasing demand would draw other people out of employment etc. Of course with any economic change some people lose and some people win, but wouldn't the net effect be positive? Are you saying a trade deficit* with China is better than money circulating much longer in the European economy?

*My international economics professor when asked about trade deficits and surpluses simply said they eventually always must return to an equilibrium. What he forgot to ponder is of course WHAT this new equilibrium could be. If the situation prior to free trade is: EU rich and China poor, while the new equilibrium is: EU poor, China rich (due to all those investments they otherwise wouldn't have gotten), then I fail to see how free trade is beneficial to the EU.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Clinton did sign Kyoto. The US has not ratified it.

There was some huge resolution against it. Clinton never sent the Treaty to get voted on, because he knew it would lose. He's even better then the countries that sign, not intending to follow. He signed, not intending to have it ratified.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Just Republican stupidity really. Clinton signed the treaty but the Republicans in Congress refused to ratify it then Bush got into office and unsigned it so even if the Democrats wanted to ratify it now Bush won't resign it.

I'm afraid we'll have to wait until Bush is gone. The good news is once the guys with all the connections to big oil leave (I.E. when Bush leaves) it is likely that the next President, Republican or Democrat, will make some sort of carbon initiative.

Also what truly exposes this "carbon tax" as a pack of lies is that even states like California which have passed there own carbon cutting plans would STILL get tarrifed. So this really is BS. Other wise why wouldn't Californian made goods be exempt?

The whole Congress was against it, fish-taco-head. Dems too.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You know what? We should just burn as much carbon as we want, cuz we're not gonna fix the system until its too damn late. May as well enjoy the Titanic before she sinks.

rock on. I want the grasslands to turn to jungle.

[Drake Tungsten]