Indian Economy

[prasen9]

I completely agree with Arjun's point about distorted trade of China. @Prasen, China doesn't subsidize the bill "For ever", it only does so until global supply chains shift their balance towards Chinese manufactured good,and the local companies in the process will die a natural death and then Chinese companies start increasing the prices enjoyng their monopoly. There are several examples of Chinese dumping like stray chinese manja used in Kite flying slitting throats of several children and bike riders in India, and toys like Fidget spinners marketed as anxiety relievers actually work the other way around, and most of the Chinese production juggernaut depends on exporting toxic,health degrading alternatives to the genuine products ex : Cinnamon Vs Cassia (also called Chinese Cinnamon).I can go on and on about such products but to summarize "Just because something is made available cheaper may not necessarily be cheap in the long run" due to the cost we incur on health by consuming such stuff.All such "unrestricted dumping" not only shifts the trade balance in Chinese favour, but is hazardous to public safety and health. So it's better to realize there is no such thing as "FAIR" trade and negotiate separate mutual trade agreements with countries case by case giving the local concerns of health,safety and employment intrests paramount importance. Fenatyl drug poisioning can never be accepted as Free and Fair trade!

When they increase the cost, then people start making things again. This is exactly what happened when the Japanese dumped cars in the U.S. They sold quite a few. Then, they had to increase the price and the others were able to sell again. Obviously for those markets where you need a lot of investment to create a product, e.g., silicon chips, there may be a case for preventing dumping. I don't think there is that much of a case for stupid plastic trinkets from China. If anything is hazardous to public safety and health, that product should be banned. Having that made by an Indian firm is not going to make the product safe. You are conflating different things. By all means stop fentanyl trade if you can. Putting tariffs on the Chinese or anyone else is not going to take the product away.

Tariffs are a tax. It is levied on your citizens and used to prop up industries in your country. It is redistribution of money from a lot of people in a country to a few (who own the industries). The only case where tariffs make sense is if it is on social vices like cigarettes, petroleum, etc. and I am fine with that. If there are environmental reasons for not buying from somewhere or child exploitation, etc., then just ban those products from those countries or put a targeted tariff. Beyond that, taxing your citizens to channel the money to some industraliasts who are your preferred buddies is not good policy.

[Kumar]

With all the tariffs that has been in the news recently, I was wondering to get feedback about one issue that has always bugged me

Global economy has been based on consumption and more consumption is needed to really keep the engine running..and with manufacturing cost of consumables going down and down due to scientific advancement , we are producing more and consuming more (case in point the huge amount of clothes that are being produced today) .. I would absolutely love this clothes to be tariffed at high rate to prevent them from being dumped.

i have always felt that this is not sustainable in the long run.. on the flip side, i do not know of there is a model that would better than current model? What are all your thoughts?

[prasen9]

I would put a heavy tariff on cigarettes (and other tobacco products) and carbon (petroleum). No other tariffs except where there is an environmental or labor burden or tax on U.S. producers and no such burden or subsidy or tax on foreign producers targeted on a item/country basis to even the playing field.

[jayakris]

I would put a heavy tariff on cigarettes (and other tobacco products) and carbon (petroleum). No other tariffs except where there is an environmental or labor burden or tax on U.S. producers and no such burden or subsidy or tax on foreign producers targeted on a item/country basis to even the playing field.

Why only cigarettes? Why not carbonated sugar drinks which also have no health benefits and cause notable health issues for those who consume it? Or alcohol, which also has mostly only negative health effects on individuals? There are probably other consumption items that are bad for individuals too. Cigarettes now cause no serious environmental damage, as the second-hand smoke issue has been pretty much entirely handled with smoking bans (which is a right policy, of course). I don't like the curtailment of individual rights to damage their own health and pay for it - and doing such encroachment into people's rights only in the case of smoking.

[prasen9]

To each his or her own. I am fine with tarrifs on carbonated drinks. Wrt alcohol, the research I have seen is mixed. If you can show me the research that it's cost/benefit ratio is overwhelmingly high as in cigarettes and sugar-drinks, then I am fine with doing so with alcohol too. Nobody is banning the products. By using those products, you are putting a higher burden to society by on the average (as a population of smokers, etc.) others will pick up your health costs later on in life. If you are allowed to increase their health insurance premiums, etc., I am fine with no tariffs assuming the cost can be recaptured accurately downstream. Similarly, I will be fine not charging tariffs on petroleum if you can make the polluters clean up the air and pay for the health care harms they impose on society.

So you are also a supporter of euthanasia? Just checking. The true libertarian is. The fake liberterian right-wingers are all for individual rights when it serves their political agenda but when it comes to euthanasia or abortion, they suddenly believe in the church or the government doing what they want to impose on society.

[jayakris]

^^^ No I am not too much for individual rights or anything. I am just an advocate for fairness. I think smokers get targeted unfairly. Not even given an option to pay for the damages they cause to themselves or the society. Like, I don't see why smoke rooms cannot be provided for them at airports (fully paid for by them; with a charge for even opening the door to it!). Keep it really away from kids for them not to even know of smoking, if you want it that way. The soda drinker is given free toilet to pee in, you know!

I don't mind some unfairness in these things, but I feel that what is done to smokers is a bit too extreme. And it is all to "discourage" others from smoking. In other words, because others feel they cannot control themselves from becoming smokers, we need smokers to not smoke. isn't that sort of like saying that women should cover themselves up because men can't control themselves?

Somehow, nobody thinks much, and people just decide to "take the smoking rights away" so cavalierly. So many people do so many things that damage themselves and cause environmental damage, and no questions are asked. Sounds quite unfair to me.

As for euthanasia, I don't have much of an opinion. Have not faced a situation, to know of the fairness issues therein. The quick gut feeling is that Euthanasia should be left to the individual. It should not be easy, to avoid suicidal depression effects etc, and some serious criterion should be there, to take into account the person's responsibilities to the society. But no, not on the basis of any old religious scriptures.

[Atithee]

^^ So, Jay, can the pay for your sins argument for smokers be extended to dopers in sport? Why or why not?

[jayakris]

^^ So, Jay, can the pay for your sins argument for smokers be extended to dopers in sport? Why or why not?

No you cannot extend it to dopers in sports. Unless doping is banned only because it causes damage to the doper, and not because it improves their sport performance. If it causes a competitive advantage, then it is a disadvantage for others, and payment option is not possible.

That is not the case with smoker who smoke away from banned spaces (which should be most open areas where others can be within 25 feet or whatever appropriate distance).

[prasen9]

Jay, why do people wanting to die have a responsibility to society but not smokers? A smoker dies earlier and also loses productivity earlier. Friends and family take care of them then. Maybe in the U.S. you can charge smokers more for health insurance, but in much of the rest of the world the damage that smokers cause to society is not recouped. If the state subsidizes education, that is under the assumption of a regular work life. If a somker is less productive or dies earlier, the state does not get the full benefits of that education they subsidized. Smokers' parents supported them. They have an obligation to support their children paying ahead. By dying early and spending on cigarettes, they save less, support their kids less, etc.

In essence, if there was a smoker whose grew up wild in a deserted island living there alone after his or her parents passed away right after he or she was born, then I don't care. Let him import cigarettes tariff free.

The euthanist, on the other hand, is usually a person in the last stages of their life with very little productive life left. He possibly has much less responsibility than the smoker. If I were to argue against euthanasia, I would perhaps go on the lines of whether the person has the capability to decide at that point even though they may have said so at an earlier date that is what they want, etc. Not on social responsibility lines.

[prasen9]

It is at least 30 feet without wind for about five hours (closed settings). With wind it goes further but stays perhaps a shorter time. Also, taxes and tariffs are a payment option.

[jayakris]

No I am not too much for individual rights or anything. I am just an advocate for fairness. I think smokers get targeted unfairly. Not even given an option to pay for the damages they cause to themselves or the society. Like, I don't see why smoke rooms cannot be provided for them at airports (fully paid for by them; with a charge for even opening the door to it!). Keep it really away from kids for them not to even know of smoking, if you want it that way. The soda drinker is given free toilet to pee in, you know!

I must clarify that I did not mean that dopers can pay for the damage they cause to the society! The smoking room, away from kids and in a place where the exhaust is truly not going to affect the society) is a case of non-smokers not getting any damage. The cost for offering the room, if it is built and maintained by the government, is what the smoker pays for. This is not like carbon trading where you actually put a cost on damages caused and the person causing damage is paying. I am not suggesting that for smokers. I am only suggesting allowing them to kill themselves slowly, and paying for the facilities they need, to kill themselves without causing any damage to others

[jayakris]

Jay, why do people wanting to die have a responsibility to society but not smokers? A smoker dies earlier and also loses productivity earlier. Friends and family take care of them then. Maybe in the U.S. you can charge smokers more for health insurance, but in much of the rest of the world the damage that smokers cause to society is not recouped. If the state subsidizes education, that is under the assumption of a regular work life.

All of these things apply to drinking carbonated drinks, eating chocolate, not exercizing, etc. Losing productive time applies to people who watch movies, cricket matches etc (probably 2 or 3 years of productive time in their lives?)... Why aren't you asking these questions on all those activities that do not have positive impact except the individual's enjoyment and happiness?

Yes, if it is a country with Government health insurance paid for by taxpayers, of course, go after smokers. And in countries like USA where people pay for insurance, add the cost in the insurance premium, and don't give any breaks to smokers. But then I will ask for different rate for everybody who drinks Coke/Pepsi too. Maybe not as much health damage but not insignificant.

[jayakris]

It is at least 30 feet without wind for about five hours (closed settings). With wind it goes further but stays perhaps a shorter time. Also, taxes and tariffs are a payment option.

No smoking in closed spaces where others may come in, period. If it is 30 feet or 50 feet or whatever, set it at that level. Again, it should be the smoker's responsibility if the person smokes and somebody walks into the 30 feet space unaware of the smoke. Do not smoke anywhere where you can be arrested because you caused damage to somebody. That is why I said allow them to pay for smoking rooms. If it is a small airport terminal and the smoke needs to be sent over a pipe to a safe exhaust place 100 meters away, so be it, and get the money for that from the smokers. Quite probably a lot of them will quit smoking from that too, because it is too costly to go around looking for smoking rooms and pay say a dollar for a smoke

But you won't be playing God and deciding for the smoker, how he/she should live a life. Just like you don't do that in the case of over-eaters, coke/pepsi drinkers, chocolate eaters (heck, red meat eaters!!), etc.

I would like to ban vacation travel too, because it causes so much of plastic waste in many tourist locations, not to mention extra energy use for vehicle travel and the associated environmental emission impacts. Why should we allow travel for the individuals' enjoyment when all it does to the rest of the society is damage, and lost productivity from people who facilitate such travel, running inns and cafes and all that (they could all do more productive things for which they were "educated" with taxpayer subsidy!)

I am partly being a devil's advocate here, but I can find one thing after another, where nobody pays attention to social damage or productivity loss, or anything else, and allows individuals to enjoy their lives - but when it comes to smokers, we all want to play God. That is unfair.

[SaniaFan]

I see no advocate here. Only
You guys behave like you are back to college. Pick up a topic with few bottles of cheap beer/whisky/rum/vodka(basically whatever you can get hold of) and shred it tho threads.

[thebestone]

Haha, this thread definitely has that classic late-night college debate vibe: armchair philosophers with strong opinions and plenty of time to argue. Nothing changes, right?