Author: Bill Wirtz — For Free Trade – A Consumer Choice Center Project

European Union and United States should agree on no tariffs on either food or cars

Trade representatives of the European Union and the United States are meeting today to discuss the scope of EU-US trade talks. The United States argues for an opening of trade relations on food, while the European Union wants to avoid the introduction of tariffs on automobiles.

In response, Bill Wirtz, Policy Analyst at the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), argued that there was an easy compromise to be found here:

“The essential question is: why can’t we have both? Free trade on food means more choices and better quality food for European consumers, and free trade on cars will mean more choices and better quality for American consumers. The goal should be the bring tariff and non-tariff barriers done to an absolute minimum, ideally to zero,” said Wirtz.

“Some EU leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, argue in favour of protectionism on food, in order to court the vote of the agricultural sector. That is short-run economic thinking, and hurts consumers. Protectionism has been intellectually bankrupt for centuries, and it’s time we admit it,” said Wirtz.

“We don’t know what the future holds. Maybe the roles will be reversed in a couple of years, and consumers will be longing for European food and American cars. In any way, it shouldn’t be the role of these trade representatives to restrict consumer choice. The European Union praises the advantages that free trade has had for this continent. It shouldn’t be any different for those across the Atlantic,” concluded Wirtz.

Bill Wirtz March 6, 2019

DEBATE: Should we slash post-Brexit tariffs on food imports to offer consumers cheaper goods?

Should we slash post-Brexit tariffs on food imports to offer consumers cheaper goods?

Bill Wirtz, policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center, says YES.

Contrary what the protectionists will tell you, tariffs don’t only hurt the country upon which they are imposed.

If the government decides to maintain import tariffs on food post-Brexit, it is British consumers who will foot the bill for these duties in the form of higher prices. This is particularly devastating for low-income households, which spend the largest proportion of their income on food.

The UK should remember its bad experiences with tariffs on food. History buffs will recall the 19th-century corn laws, which were introduced to protect local producers against corn from France or Germany. The result of this isolated trade policy quickly became visible: while the British producers profited, the price of grain exploded in the 1830s.

The same economic principles apply today.

Remainers and Brexiteers alike should make it their mission to offer cheaper food and more choices to the British consumer. Tariffs just help farmers, whereas free trade benefits everyone.

More…

Bill Wirtz February 21, 2019

European Union Free Trade United Kingdom

Γιατί η Ευρώπη πρέπει να αφήσει τον Τραμπ να «κερδίσει» τον εμπορικό πόλεμο

Του Bill Wirtz

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δηλώνει ότι είναι έτοιμη να ανταποδώσει τα νέα δασμολογικά μέτρα που θα προτείνει / εφαρμόσει η κυβέρνηση Τραμπ. Το να αφήσει όμως τον Τραμπ να “κερδίσει” τον εμπορικό πόλεμο θα ήταν πολύ εξυπνότερο.

Ο Τραμπ και οι δασμοί

Η αναφορά του ονόματος του Τραμπ στις Βρυξέλλες (την πρωτεύουσα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης) προκαλεί έντονες αντιδράσεις. Ο Τραμπ δεν είναι μόνο αντιδημοφιλής, αλλά και θεωρείται στην καλύτερη περίπτωση απληροφόρητος και στη χειρότερη κακόβουλος. Το αν αυτά είναι ακριβή είναι μια άλλη ιστορία, όμως η διαμάχη σχετικά με τον εμπορικό πόλεμο αποκαλύπτει το επίπεδο του αναστοχασμού στην Ευρώπη. Πολλά λέγονται για τους δασμούς που επιβάλλονται επί των ευρωπαϊκών προϊόντων, και η ρητορική των Βρυξελλών είναι πως οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες ξεκίνησαν πρώτες τον εμπορικό πόλεμο, υποχρεώνοντας την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σε ανταπόδοση.

Το γεγονός ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ήταν αυτή που εφάρμοσε πρώτη τους σημαντικότερους φραγμούς στο εμπόριο δεν τους πέρασε από το μυαλό.

Στις 18 Ιανουαρίου, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση υιοθέτησε μια εντολή διαπραγμάτευσης για τις εμπορικές συνομιλίες με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Οι Βρυξέλλες ανακοίνωσαν ότι κάθε νέο μέτρο δασμών που θα λαμβάνεται από την Ουάσινγκτον, θα αντιμετωπίζεται με επιβολή ανταποδοτικών δασμών στην Ευρώπη.

Η Επίτροπος Εμπορίου της ΕΕ Cecilia Malmström προειδοποίησε πως αν ο Τραμπ αποφασίσει να τιμωρήσει τους Ευρωπαίους στο εμπόριο “έχουμε προχωρήσει την εσωτερική μας προετοιμασία ώστε να ανταποδώσουμε. Αν συμβεί αυτό είμαστε έτοιμοι, και θα έχει ένα ιδιαίτερα επιβλαβές αποτέλεσμα στις διαπραγματεύσεις” όπως δήλωσε.

Ο ρόλος των τροφίμων

Κατά το διάστημα 2010-2014, οι ΗΠΑ και η ΕΕ διαπραγματεύτηκαν τη Διατλαντική Εμπορική και Επενδυτική Σχέση (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – ΤΤΙΡ). Οι διαπραγματεύσεις τερματίστηκαν μετά από έντονες διαμαρτυρίες στην Ευρώπη που πίεσαν τις Βρυξέλλες να διακόψουν τις συνομιλίες. Καταστροφολόγοι ακτιβιστές εναντίον της ελευθερίας του εμπορίου προειδοποίησαν τους Ευρωπαίους έναντι της απειλής της εισαγωγής αγαθών από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, όπως τροφίμων γενετικών μεταλλαγμένων οργανισμών.

Η εισαγωγή όμως τροφίμων που παρήχθησαν βάσει διαφορετικών προτύπων από τους κανονισμούς της ΕΕ δεν “υπονομεύει” κατ’ ελάχιστο τα ευρωπαϊκά πρότυπα. Εφόσον οι καταναλωτές γνωρίζουν την προέλευση των προϊόντων, η αμοιβαία αναγνώριση των προτύπων δεν απειλεί την νομοθεσία κανενός μέρους.

Μια έκθεση της Foodwatch, μιας γερμανικής ΜΚΟ που υποτίθεται ότι υπερασπίζεται τους καταναλωτές, αντιμετωπίζει ομοίως την ιδέα του ελεύθερου εμπορίου με περιφρόνηση. Αυτό καταφαίνεται με σαφήνεια σε ένα κεφάλαιο που αφορά τις εμπορικές σχέσεις του Μεξικού στη σελίδα 47. Οι ερευνητές γράφουν:

“Το 2001, το Μεξικό εισήγαγε έναν φόρο επί όλων των αναψυκτικών που χρησιμοποιούν γλυκαντικά εκτός της ζάχαρης από ζαχαροκάλαμο (πχ με ζάχαρη από τεύτλα, ή ισογλυκόζη, ένα σιρόπι που κατασκευάζεται από άμυλο καλαμποκιού ή σταριού). Η εξαίρεση των αναψυκτικών που χρησιμοποιούν ζάχαρη από ζαχαροκάλαμο προστάτευσε την παραγωγή ζαχαροκάλαμου της χώρας”.

Στη συνέχεια, εξηγούν ότι αυτού του είδους οι φόροι απειλούνται από τους εμπορικούς κανόνες του ΠΟΕ και ότι οι λομπίστες του κλάδου αντιτάσσονται σ’ αυτούς υποστηρίζοντας ότι αποτελούν “μια μορφή εμπορικής αρνητικής διάκρισης”. Η ΕΕ βεβαίως είναι γνωστή για τις πρακτικές εμπορικής διάκρισης που εφαρμόζει και έχουν ως στόχο την προστασία των δικών της παραγωγών, όπως τη διαβόητη απαγόρευση του βοδινού κρέατος που έχει υποστεί επεξεργασία με την ορμόνη 17β-οιστραδιόλη. Αυτού του είδους ο γεωργικός προστατευτισμός είναι πάντα ένα μείζον διαφιλονικούμενο σημείο στις εμπορικές διαπραγματεύσεις, οπότε είναι σίγουρα παράδοξο να αναδεικνύεται από τους ακτιβιστές εναντίον του εμπορίου.

Ο τόνος της έκθεσης υπογραμμίζεται από την παρακάτω δήλωση ενός από τους συγγραφείς της, του Thomas Fritz κατά τη συνέντευξη τύπου της Foodwatch: “Το συμπέρασμά μας είναι ότι λόγω αυτών των Συμφωνιών Ελεύθερου Εμπορίου, το εμπόριο τροφίμων όντως πιθανότατα θα αυξηθεί και μαζί μ’ αυτό θα αυξηθούν και οι κίνδυνοι για τους καταναλωτές και το περιβάλλον”.

Ξεχάστε τις ανησυχίες για τη δημοκρατία, τις δικαστικές διαδικασίες ή ακόμη και τα πρότυπα των τροφίμων: αυτοί οι ακτιβιστές αντιτάσσονται στο ελεύθερο εμπόριο ούτως ή άλλως, γιατί αυξάνει το εμπόριο τροφίμων. Για ποιον ακριβώς “κίνδυνο για τους καταναλωτές” μιλάμε; Τον κίνδυνο των περισσότερων επιλογών; Και σε ποιον ακριβώς “κίνδυνο” εκθέτουμε τους παραγωγούς της Νότιας Αμερικής; Στον κίνδυνο να αυξηθεί η παραγωγή και η οικονομική τους ευημερία;

Να αφήσουμε τον Τραμπ να “κερδίσει”, αψηφώντας τους ακτιβιστές που αντιτάσσονται στο ελεύθερο εμπόριο

Τι θα χρειαζόταν να γίνει για να “κερδίσει” ο Ντόναλντ Τραμπ τον εμπορικό πόλεμο; Ουσιαστικά, ο Τραμπ υποστηρίζει την εξάλειψη όλων των δασμολογικών και μη δασμολογικών φραγμών. Το μόνο που χρειάζεται να κάνει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι να πει στον Τραμπ “κέρδισες” και να ανακαλέσει τα ανταποδοτικά μέρα που εισήγαγε στο παρελθόν. Αυτό θα ανοίξει την αγορά προσφέροντας φθηνότερα προϊόντα στους Ευρωπαίους καταναλωτές και θα επιτρέψει στον Τραμπ να προσεγγίσει τον στόχο του μιας βάσης μηδενικών δασμών.

Αυτό όμως δεν πρόκειται να συμβεί καθώς η έννοια της “νίκης” είναι στον ίδιο βαθμό πολιτικοποιημένη στις Βρυξέλλες όσο και σε μια πολιτική συγκέντρωση του Τραμπ. ¨Ετσι, την επόμενη φορά που θα δείτε να γυρίζουν τα μάτια στην Ευρώπη όταν αναφέρεται ο εμπορικός πόλεμος, έχετε κατά νου ότι κι εδώ στη Γηραιά Ήπειρο, η κατάσταση δεν είναι στην πραγματικότητα καλύτερη.

—

Ο Bill Wirtz είναι Young Voices Advocate και εργάζεται ως αναλυτής πολιτικών στο Consumer Choice Center.

Bill Wirtz February 7, 2019

European Union Free Trade Greece

Why Europe Should Let Trump “Win” on Trade

The European Union says it’s ready to retaliate against new tariff measures proposed/instituted by the Trump administration. However, letting Trump “win” the trade war would be far smarter.

Trump and Tariffs

Mentioning Trump’s name in Brussels (the capital of the European Union) produces a lot of eye-rolls. Trump is not only unpopular, but he is also regarded as being uninformed at best and having malicious intent at worst. Whether or not those things are accurate is a story for another time, but the trade war debate reveals the level of self-reflection in Europe. Much is said about the tariffs imposed on European goods, and the narrative in Brussels is that the United States started the trade war, forcing the European Union to retaliate.

The fact that the European Union initiated the most important trade barriers didn’t occur to them.

On January 18, the European Union adopted a negotiating mandate for the trade talks with the United States. Brussels announced that every new tariff measure by Washington, DC, would be met with retaliatory tariffs in Europe.

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström warned that if Trump decides to punish Europeans on trade, “we are very advanced in our internal preparations” to retaliate. “Should that happen, we are ready, it would have a very damaging effect on the negotiations,” she said.

What’s Food Got to Do with It?

Between 2010 and 2014, the US and the EU negotiated the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The negotiations ended after considerable public protests in Europe pressured Brussels to break-off the talks. Fear-mongering anti-free trade activists warned the public about the threat of importing goods from the United States, such as GMO foods.

However, importing goods produced to different standards than EU norms does not in the least “undermine” EU standards. Provided consumers are aware of the origin of their products, mutual recognition of standards poses no threat to anyone’s legislation.

A report by Foodwatch, a German NGO pretending to stand for consumers, also treats the idea of free trade with contempt. This is well illustrated in a chapter on Mexican trade relations on page 47. The researchers write:

In 2001 Mexico introduced a tax on all soft drinks flavoured with sweeteners other than cane sugar (e.g. with beet sugar or isoglucose, a syrup made from corn or wheat starch). The exception for drinks sweetened with cane sugar protected the country’s own sugar cane production.

They continue by explaining that such taxes are being challenged under WTO trade rules and that industry lobbyists oppose them through the claim of “a form of trade discrimination.” The EU, of course, is well-known for trade discriminatory practices aimed at protecting its own producers, including its famous ban on beef treated with the estradiol-17β hormone.These activists would oppose free trade no matter what because it increases food trade.

Such agricultural protection is always a major sticking point in trade negotiations, so it is certainly an odd point for anti-trade activists to bring up.

The report’s tenor is exemplified by this statement from one of its authors, Thomas Fritz, during the Foodwatch press conference:

Our conclusion is that due to these FTAs [Free Trade Agreements], food trade is indeed likely to grow, along with the risks posed to the consumer and the environment.

Forget concerns about democracy, judicial procedures, or even those of food standards: these activists would oppose free trade no matter what because it increases food trade. “The risk to the consumer”—what risk are we talking about? The risk of falling food prices and increased quality? The risk of expanded choice? And to what “risk” are we exposing the producers in South America to? The risk of increased production and economic prosperity?

Defy Anti-Free Trade Activists, Let Trump “Win”

What would it take for Donald Trump to “win” the trade war? In essence, Trump supports getting rid of all tariff and non-tariff barriers. All the European Union needs to do is to tell the administration “you won” and drop the previously introduced retaliatory measures. This would open the market and provide cheaper goods for European consumers and enable Trump to approach his goal of a zero-tariff basis.

But that isn’t going to happen because the notion of “winning” is as politicized in Brussels as it is during a Trump rally. So next time you receive eye rolls at the mention of the trade war in Europe, recognize that over here on the old continent, we aren’t really any better.

Bill Wirtz February 4, 2019

European Union Free Trade

Rice tariffs: who are we kidding on the EU’s “free trade”?

The European Union introduces tariffs on rice from Cambodia and Myanmar in an effort to protect Italian farmers. Another example of “free trade” à la European Union.

It was announced last Wednesday that tariffs on rice from Cambodia and Myanmar were being re-introduced, in order to fulfil safeguard clauses. The terminology here is telling. European farmers are supposed to be “safeguarded” from foreign competition. It was at the request of Italy the Commission already suggested structural tariffs in November, those starting at €175/tonne in the first year and then progressively dropping to €150 in the second year and €125 in the third year.

Back then, the proposal didn’t find a majority in the Council, and therefore bounced back to Berlaymont, which now confirmed its initial intention. Until now, Cambodia and Myanmar benefitted from the EU’s Everything But Arms (EBA) trade scheme, which unilaterally grants duty-and quota-free access to the world’s least developed countries (apart from arms and ammunition).

Italian MEP Tiziana Beghin said, according to Politico, that she had been fighting for a safeguard to protect Italian farmers since 2014, and said that the news was a “relief” for more than 4,000 enterprises and families.

The Five Star Member of the European Parliament surely completed a smart political move for her constituants, which benefit from new tariffs, or who have been misled into supporting them. More misled however have been those who for the longest time have believed that the goal of the European Union was to be in favour of free trade. What a disappointment that must be.

The European Commission writes in its press release:

“The initial request for trade safeguards on rice imports was tabled by the Italian government in February 2018 and supported by all other EU rice growing Member States (Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria).”

It is written in this way because either the Commission has absolutely no notion of what it means to have a vested interest, or because it realises itself that free trade does not exist in the European Union.

While rice-producing member states are naturally lobbied by their local rice farmers, consumers have nobody to speak on their behalf. Too many of the established consumer organizations have nothing to say on tariffs. In fact, it seems all too often that they back the protectionist far-left and far-right positions, in order to “protect jobs” and “support local production”.

To them, consumer prices seem irrelevant. In fact, the European consumer organization BEUC has nothing to say at all about the EU’s re-introduction on rice tariffs. Does it not matter to them that it is low-income consumers who will be hit the hardest by this form of indirect taxation?

This is not the first time this happens. The European Union constantly introduces new tariffs, and many have been added since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The reasons are diverse: often it is because the producing country is accused of subsidizing their local economy (which the EU does also through the Common Agricultural Policy), but a safeguard measure can be as blatantly protectionist as in the example of rice imports from Cambodia and Myanmar.

If you were to suggest something similar on a national level, you’d be accused of nationalism. If done on a Brussels-level, it is merely a safeguard.

Protectionism is purely ideological because it is based on sentimental beliefs. If we were to take nationalism out of the picture, it would be difficult to argue that international free trade would be disadvantageous while domestic free trade (say, between cantons or provinces) is advantageous. This is particularly true in large trading blocs such as the European Union. Aren’t French farmers also hurt by imports from Bulgaria?

And if internal subsidization processes of the EU are working to eliminate those differences within the bloc, then how is Bulgaria supposed to rise out of its economic hardships, if nobody can ever compete with Western Europe, make a profit and innovate? And what is the big threat anyway, when cheap food for our consumers is the result?

The price for the economic illiteracy of this entire process is footed by the European consumer, who is told that the Trump’s of the world are the problem with free trade. And while Washington D.C’s trade politics have indeed changed for the worse, they’re unparalleled in their doublespeak by an EU pretending to stand for free trade in the world, while catering to local interests in order to keep the bloc together.

Bill Wirtz February 4, 2019

European Union Free Trade

Trump’s Free Trade Suggestion remains Unheard

During European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker’s visit to Washington D.C, Donald Trump once again suggested a tariff-and subsidy-free trade area between the European Union and the United States. Yet, the American president continues to fall on deaf ears, for reasons that tell more about the EU than it does about ominous ‘Trumpism’.

The meeting in Washington seemed to have a positive announcement within, as both parties agreed on an end to tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and subsidies on non-auto related industries. In a joint press conference, both parties announced that the European Union would increase imports on liquified natural gas (LNG), as well as American soybeans.

The European Union Commission returned to Brussels in a self-congratulatory manner, claiming to have avoided a trade war. And yet, with the exception of free trade no non-auto industrial goods, as well as vague promises on avoiding retaliatory trade measures triggered by tariffs on steel and aluminium, the meeting was unproductive. The import of soybeans cannot be increased simply through a Commission president statement: there are no EU tariffs on soybeans, and if companies in Europe don’t magically decide to buy them, then literally is expected to change. On LNG, the story is comparable: the European Union has already been promoting LNG for years, and the press conference just reiterated that point.

Politico Europe conveniently called the whole process “The art of no deal“.

Juncker’s effort to charm Trump into believing that he scored a victory is sad, in comparison to the actual opportunity that President Trump presented to the EU. Not only did Trump repeat during Juncker’s visit in D.C that he’d prefer a free trade deal with Europe that’d exclude all kinds of tariff-barriers, he also repeated the said statement in a tweet on Thursday:

However, if Juncker were to actually claim to walk in the footsteps of statesmen such as Robert Schuman, he’d embrace full free trade. In trade between rich and poor countries, both sides benefit, because they pay less for products, capital goods (machines, computers, etc.), and highly specialised labor. While it is true that job losses can occur when competition increases, it is important to account for increases in exports through free trade. The German car producer Mercedes might not like the competition of Italian cars on the German market, but since many Italians purchase his product, it’s manifestly more profitable to freely trade.

Great meeting on Trade today with @JunckerEU and representatives of the European Union. We have come to a very strong understanding and are all believers in no tariffs, no barriers and no subsidies. Work on documents has already started and the process is moving…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2018

Tariffs are nothing more than a useful tool for the reactionary extremes of the right and left wings of the political spectrum. This is all the more visible in the sense that whenever Trump addresses the idea of freeing trade relations from all government intervention, nobody bothers to even address it.

Trump’s free trade suggestions remain unheard, because the solutions of subsidising or protecting through standards are immediate and popular. The European Union doesn’t follow an ideological line on free trade, it merely pretends to do so for the efficacy of political point-scoring.

The solution on trade isn’t “somewhere in the middle”. The idea that we’ll import some American products here and there, in order to get temporary concessions on some of our goods, is unproductive and hurts consumers. The only answer Jean-Claude Juncker should give when Donald Trump suggest completely free trade between the two continents is “yes please”.

Bill Wirtz August 1, 2018

Free Trade United States

Les armes sournoises de l’Union européenne dans la « guerre commerciale »

En réalité, c’est l’Union européenne qui a ouvert les hostilités dans la « guerre commerciale » en pratiquant un protectionnisme déguisé.

L’Union européenne dit riposter aux nouvelles taxes douanières américaines sur l’acier et l’aluminium imposées par l’administration de Donald Trump. Après une première dérogation, le président américain semble maintenant plus déterminé à poursuivre sa tentative de protéger les industries américaines.

Grâce à un droit de douane de 25% sur l’acier et à un droit de douane de 10% sur l’aluminium, Trump entend protéger les producteurs américains de la concurrence étrangère et conserver des emplois aux Etats-Unis. Cela reste fidèle à la ligne générale de Trump, notamment sa taxation sur les avions de série C du constructeur canadien Bombardier (des avions partiellement produits au Royaume-Uni) et aux taxes sur les panneaux solaires et les machines à laver importés.

L’Union européenne a récemment annoncé des représailles contre ces droits d’importation. Elle a intenté une procédure devant l’OMC et veut contrer les mesures américaines en instaurant des taxes douanières sur les vêtements, les véhicules à moteur, le jus d’orange ou les cigarettes de provenance américaine.

L’Union européenne ne parvient pas à dépasser le mercantilisme de Donald Trump. Pourtant, avant son élection et durant ses premiers mois au pouvoir, les politiciens européens soutenaient le libre-échange. Là où Trump voulait moins de libre-échange, l’Europe a répondu par plus de coopération économique. En juillet 2017, nous avons vu des titres comme « L’UE et le Japon scellent un accord de libre-échange comme réponse à Trump. »

« Bien que certains disent que le temps de l’isolationnisme et de la désintégration revient, nous démontrons que ce n’est pas le cas », a déclaré le président du Conseil européen Donald Tusk lors d’une conférence de presse avec le Premier ministre japonais Shinzo Abe.

Plus tard, cependant, le président de la Commission européenne, Jean-Claude Juncker, a complètement renversé ce retour aux principes économiques. Dans une citation désormais légendaire, Juncker a déclaré à Hambourg :

« Alors maintenant, nous allons également imposer des taxes sur les importations. Il s’agit, fondamentalement, d’un processus stupide, le fait que nous devions faire cela. Mais nous devons le faire. Nous allons maintenant imposer des taxes sur les Harley Davidson, sur les jeans Levis, sur le bourbon. Nous pouvons aussi agir stupidement. Nous devons aussi être aussi stupides. »

L’épisode s’est terminé par une exemption d’un mois concédée par Trump à l’Union européenne. Ce délai est maintenant expiré et aucun accord n’a été conclu. [NDLR : Dans cette guerre commerciale, il est un sujet rarement évoqué : celui de la propriété intellectuelle. Notre spécialiste vous dévoile ce qui se trame et surtout vous livre ici une idée d’investissement ultra-profitable pour exploiter ce thème.]

A Bruxelles, les législateurs sont en désaccord, alors que Washington ne semble pas y voir une priorité de négociation. Même Donald Trump ne semble pas impressionné par les menaces venant de l’UE. Contrairement à la dernière fois, nous n’avons pas été exposés aux tweets sur les voitures allemandes, mais nous avons reçu une réaction à la décision de l’UE de lancer un appel à l’OMC :

Les sournoises barrières de l’Union européenne

Les médias diffusent que l’Union européenne est désormais obligée de « répondre » à une guerre commerciale initiée par les Etats-Unis. Mais Donald Trump a-t-il raison de dire que les produits américains sont traités injustement en Europe ? La réponse est : oui, absolument.

Voici des exemples de taxes imposées par les Etats-Unis sur un certain nombre de biens (chiffres tirés de la Commission du commerce international des Etats-Unis) :

Voiture diesel : 2,5%
T-shirt : 16,5%
Parapluies : sans taxes douanières
Huile d’olives : 5 cents/kilo (5 $/100 kg)
Biscuits : sans taxes douanières
Cigarettes : 1,05 $/kg + 2,3%
Sucre de canne : 1,24 $/tonne
Jus d’orange : 7,85 $/100 litres

Voici les taxes de la Commission européenne pour un certain nombre de biens (chiffres tirés de la Commission européenne) :

Voiture diesel : 16%
T-shirt : 8%
Parapluies : 4,7%
Huile d’olives : 134 €/100 kg (156 $/100 kg)
Biscuits : 9% EA (taxe additionnelle agriculture), 24,2% ADSZ (taxe additionnelle sur le sucre)
Cigarettes : 57,6%
Sucre de canne : 4,6 €/100 kg (5,37 $/100 kg, 53,7 $/tonne)
Jus d’orange : 12,2%

Cette sélection aléatoire montre que l’Union européenne taxe déjà fortement les importations en provenance des Etats-Unis.

La preuve par le jus d’orange

En fait, alors que l’UE menace d’introduire des droits sur les produits qu’elle n’a pas encore taxés (comme le bourbon), elle veut également augmenter les taxes sur des choses comme le jus d’orange, qui sont déjà lourdement pénalisées. Aux taxes, s’ajoutent des barrières non-tarifaires : la réglementation de la qualité des aliments ainsi que d’autres normes de sécurité et enfin les subventions agricoles.

Pour exporter vers l’Union européenne ou l’un de ses membres associés, un producteur de jus d’orange américain doit se conformer à la directive 2001/112 / CE du Conseil de l’Union européenne sur les jus de fruits (amendée en 2009 et 2012 pour renforcer les exigences sur l’étiquetage et le contenu des jus). Cette directive décrit par le menu les modalités de contrôle sanitaire (législation alimentaire, pesticides), de contrôle phytosanitaire, et fixe les normes de commercialisation.

Notre producteur est obligé de tout savoir sur le règlement (CE) numéro 852/2004 relatif à l’hygiène des denrées alimentaires, ainsi que le règlement (CE) numéro 2073/2005 concernant les critères microbiologiques applicables aux denrées alimentaires et le règlement (CE) numéro 466/2001 du 8 mars 2001 fixant des teneurs maximales pour certains contaminants dans les denrées alimentaires.

En réalité, incapable de comprendre tous ces règlements lui-même, il paie des intermédiaires pour l’aider à se rendre conforme. S’il ne respecte pas ces réglementations, les distributeurs vont abandonner ses produits car selon le droit de l’UE, l’importateur est responsable des produits importés.

En plus de cela, il devra payer un droit d’importation de 12,2%.

Après avoir respecté toutes ces règles, il sera ensuite en concurrence sur un marché européen dans lequel les producteurs espagnols de jus d’orange reçoivent des subventions agricoles (qui représentent 40% du budget annuel de l’UE) et peuvent donc vendre beaucoup moins cher.

Les barrières non-tarifaires ont autant d’importance que les barrières tarifaires, même si elles sont plus difficiles à mesurer. Comment l’Union européenne prétend-elle soutenir le libre-échange en tant que valeur, avec ces restrictions ?

Et si on faisait une course vers le bas ?

Le président Trump exagère lorsqu’il affirme qu’il existe de fait un droit de douane de 100%, mais il n’a pas tort de dénoncer le double jeu de l’UE. Alors que l’Union européenne est pour le libre-échange à l’intérieur de ses propres frontières, c’est un bloc protectionniste pour quiconque souhaite commercer avec elle.

L’Europe est le plus grand partenaire commercial des Etats-Unis. Le commerce des biens et services des Etats-Unis avec l’UE a totalisé près de 1 100 milliards de dollars en 2016. Les exportations se montaient à 501 milliards de dollars ; les importations ont totalisé 592 milliards de dollars.

Ce sont les consommateurs qui font les frais de cette guerre. Ce sont les consommateurs qui paient les droits de douane et les augmentations de prix des producteurs locaux protégés de la concurrence internationale.

Bien sûr, pointer du doigt « qui a commencé » ne résout pas le problème fondamental. Ni Bruxelles, ni Trump ne soutiennent des relations commerciales transparentes. Une réaction de l’Union européenne allant dans l’intérêt de tous ses ressortissants serait réduire les droits de douane sur les importations américaines. Cela signifierait que la valeur du libre-échange en Europe prime, peu importe que Trump utilise le mercantilisme à des fins politiques.

S’il y a une guerre commerciale, ce devrait être celle consistant à voir qui peut le plus abaisser ses barrières tarifaires.

Original link: http://la-chronique-agora.com/union-europeenne-guerre-commerciale/

Bill Wirtz June 18, 2018

European Union Free Trade

The European Union Started This Trade War

Within the next 30 days, the European Union wants to respond to new US tariffs on steel and aluminum, which were imposed by the Trump administration. After an initial exemption, the president now seems to be more determined to follow through with his attempt to “protect American industries.” With a trade war seemingly about to begin, let’s throw light on who started it in the first place.

The EU’s Retaliation

Through a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum, President Trump intends to shield American producers from foreign competition and keep jobs inside the United States. This is in line with Trump’s general tendency towards economic protectionism, demonstrated by his support for tariffs on the Canadian manufacturer Bombardier’s C-series jets (planes which are partially produced in the UK as well) and for tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines.

The European Union recently announced its retaliation against those import duties. It has launched legal proceedings against the measure and plans on additional taxes on American imports in Europe, including things like clothing, motor vehicles, orange juice, or cigarettes.

It is certainly strange the European Union doesn’t manage to rise above the mercantilism of Donald Trump. Before his election, and during his first months in office, European politicians made positive signals for free trade. Where Trump wanted less free trade, Europe responded with more economic cooperation. Back in July 2017, we saw headlines like “EU, Japan seal free trade deal in signal to Trump.”

“Although some are saying that the time of isolationism and disintegration is coming again, we are demonstrating that this is not the case,” European Council President Donald Tusk said during a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

In a follow-up speech, however, EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker completely overturned this return to economic principles and to the moral high ground. In a now legendary quote, Juncker said in a speech in Hamburg, Germany:

So now we will also impose import tariffs. This is basically a stupid process, the fact that we have to do this. But we have to do it. We will now impose tariffs on motorcycles, Harley Davidson, on blue jeans, Levis, on Bourbon. We can also do stupid. We also have to be this stupid.

The episode ended with Trump granting an exemption to the European Union. That deadline has now expired, with no deal having been reached. In Brussels, lawmakers are up in arms about the measures, while Washington does not seem to see this as a priority.

Even Donald Trump seems unimpressed by threats coming from the EU. Unlike last time, we weren’t showered in tweets about German cars, but we did get a standard exclamation by the president, which was probably a reaction to the EU’s decision to launch an appeal at the World Trade Organization (WTO):

The EU Started the Trade War

The general media narrative is that the European Union is now forced to “respond” to a trade war initiated by the United States. But is Donald Trump right about the fact that American products get treated unfairly in Europe? The answer is: yes, absolutely.

Here are the tariff rates imposed on Europe by the United States on a number of goods (numbers taken from the United States International Trade Commission):

New Diesel car: 2.5 percent
T-shirt: 16.5 percent
Umbrella: Tariff-free
Olive oil: 5 cents/kilogram ($5/100 kg)
Biscuits: Tariff-free
Regular cigarettes: $1.05/kg + 2.3 percent
Orange juice: 7.85 cents/liter
Sugarcane: $1.24/ton

Here are the tariff rates imposed by the European Union on a number of goods (numbers taken from the European Commission):

- New Diesel car: 16 percent
- T-shirt: 8 percent
- Umbrella: 4.7 percent
- Olive oil: €134/100 kg ($156/100 kg)
- Biscuits: 9 percent EA (additional “agricultural component” duty), 24.2 percent ADSZ (additional duty on sugar contents)
- Regular cigarettes: 57.6 percent

Orange juice: 12.2 percent

Sugarcane: €4.6/100 kg ($5.37/100 kg, $53.7/ton)

Just on a random selection, it turns out that the European Union is already heavily taxing imports from the United States. In fact, while the EU is threatening to introduce duties on products it hasn’t been taxing yet (such as bourbon), it also wants to increase taxes on things like orange juice, which are already heavily taxed. On top of that, you also need to add two components of non-tariff barriers: food quality and other product safety standards, as well as agricultural subsidies.

In practice, this means that in order to export to the European Union or any of its associated members, an American orange juice producer needs to abide by the European Union Council Directive 2001/112/EC on fruit juices (this one was amended in both 2009 and 2012 to tighten requirements on labelling and content of the juices): Health control (food law, hygiene, microbiological criteria, contaminants, pesticides), Plant health control (harmful organisms), Marketing standards. This makes him obligated to know everything about Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs as well as Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Since the regular producer is unable to figure all of these regulations out by himself, he’ll have to pay compliance costs for firms to figure them out for him, because if he doesn’t, retailers will quickly drop his products because according to EU law the importer is responsible for the import.

On top of that, he will have to pay a 12.2 percent import duty.

After complying with all of these rules, he will then compete on a European market in which Spanish orange juice producers receive agricultural subsidies (which make up 40 percent of the EU’s annual budget), and can, therefore, sell for much cheaper.

Non-tariff barriers matter just as much as tariff barriers, even though they more difficult to measure. How exactly the European Union, given all of these restrictions, pretends to claim to hold free trade as a value is questionable.

What about a Race to the Bottom?

President Trump is clearly hyperbolic in his claim that there is such a thing as a 100 percent customs duty, but he isn’t wrong in bemoaning the EU’s trade policy. While the European Union might practice free trade within its own borders, it is a protectionist bloc for anyone who wishes to trade with it.

This is particularly frustrating given the important of Euro-American trade relations. Europe is the United State’s largest trading partner. US goods and services trade with the EU totaled nearly $1.1 trillion in 2016. Exports totaled $501 billion; imports totaled $592 billion.

The ones suffering from all of it are the consumers. It’s the consumers who pick up the tab when customs duties have to be paid, and when local producers can increase prices when they’re shielded from international competition. As low-income producers spend most of their income on consumption goods, they are suffering from it the most.

Of course, pointing fingers at “who started it” doesn’t resolve the fundamental problem. Neither Brussels nor Trump have an understanding of how trade relations work. If the European Union wants to appropriately respond to new tariffs on steel and aluminum, it should actually reduce tariffs on US imports. This would send a clear sign that the belief in free trade in Europe is consistent, no matter how much Trump uses mercantilism for political point-scoring with his base.

If there is to be a trade war, it should be a trade war to see who can slash tariff barriers the most.

Full article

Bill Wirtz June 6, 2018

Free Trade

Tariffs on New Planes Won’t Cure Aviation’s Old Ills Read Newsmax

Last week, the US Department of Commerce released a statement in which it announced new tariffs on Canadian plane imports. The description “Duty Determination on Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada“ will sound oddly specific to most readers, but very familiar to people interested in civil aviation. One-hundred to 150-seat Canadian aircrafts are currently being produced by Bombardier — rivalling Boeing and Airbus on the U.S. market.

The American airline Delta, which has ordered 75 of Bombardier’s C-Series jets, will not be able to purchase the aircraft if the US tariff of 220 percent would be imposed. Delta has claimed that Boeing does not produce a comparable aircraft, which is why they decided in favour of the Canadian competitor.

It is notable that the imposition of this tariff could bring the Canadian producer into major financial difficulty, as it would triple the price of the C-series and endanger thousands of Canadian jobs. This also includes the UK’s Northern Irish region around Belfast, which produces the wings for the planes, which has lead British Prime Minister Theresa May to hint at a possible trade with with the U.S. over aircraft production.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau denounced “Boeing’s protectionist and baseless measures,” saying the Canadian government does not want to “do business with a company that is attacking us and wants to lay off tens of thousands of people.”

The U.S. government is clearly taking sides in the competition between major companies, and is making trade relations difficult with its closest partners. Both Canada and the UK will be majorly important in the establishment of mutually beneficial trading relationships, especially once Britain leaves the European Union.

Ruling in favour of crippling tariffs doesn’t reflect well on the Trump administration, as it neglects both the political and market consequences of the decision.

The participation of Bombardier on the market is a major asset for price competition and pushing for innovation. The U.S. has dominated the world economy because it was able to trade competitively and with innovative products. If the administration leaves aircraft productions in the hand of one company, then it lifts the burden of the search for the competitive advantage of the shoulders of this firm.

From a consumer position, barring Bombardier from the market can lead to higher costs, as airlines will either have to buy aircrafts it doesn’t want for the price one company has dictated or not buy a plane at all. As competition is being reduced, the choices for the consumer shrink simultaneously.

In an era of cheap aviation, the U.S. should support competitive and innovative markets, not dwell in the nostalgia of past technological achievements. American companies and consumers alike will profit from more, not less free trade.

Bill Wirtz is a political commentator currently based in France. Originally from Luxembourg, he writes columns about politics in Germany, France, and the U.K., as well as about policy emerging from the European Union. His articles have been published by Newsweek, The American Conservative, the Washington Examiner, and the Mises Institute. He is a Young Voices Advocate, a regular contributor for Rare Media and the Foundation for Economic Education, and works as a Policy Analyst for the Consumer Choice Center. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

Bill Wirtz October 7, 2017

Free Trade United States