Question

When tariffs are imposed on European imports of shoes from China and Vietnam, who stands to gain? Who stands to lose?

2.   European policymakers object to the fact that some Asian shoe production is government susidized. But as an editorial in the Financial times noted “ If Beijing and Hanoi want to subsidize European consumers to build their shoe collections, let them “. Do you agree?

3.   Antidumping countries can be described as a form of protectionism. As the global economic crisis happened in 2008 and 2009, many countries began implementing protectionist. Is this a positive trend or are such policies likely to prolong the recession?

Answer 1

It can be mentioned that because imports are restricted the one who gains from trade are domestic producers of shoes from Europe itself and the one who loses are the exporters of shoes of Vietnam and China.

2. I am not in agreement with that. I think that the Chinese government and Vietnam are justified in subsidizing demand for shoes and this is to meet the needs of their citizens rather than to please people in other countries. If the goods can be exported to a different country, government can bear profits.

3. In my opinion, the security of the local product from imports can be defined as anti-dumping. Local product will assist countries in bringing countries out of recession because only one country has a cash flow. I assume this is a positive development that can make a country more prosperous and survive the crisis. It can hurt the local product, make it more reliant on another country, if they do not anti-dumping.