Welcome to the website of Emile Woolf

• Thank you Emile, excellent, informative article.
  • 2

1642again • an hour ago Thanks Emile - in ideal terms you are right of course, but I still think President Trump is correct. Countires like the US and UK have a right to defend their sovereign interests, including critically important parts of the economy, from predatory overseas rivals, such as China, who use free trade as a strategic weapon to undermine their rival' economies. The UK steel industry is a case in point - China massively over invested in steel capacity and then started dumping very cheap steel on the global markets using marginal cost accounting, threatening the survival of the steel industries of western countries. Would we really want to see our domestic suppliers bankrupted and be dependent on China for our steel production?

• Reply

Emile Woolf  1642again • 7 minutes ago Johnson has in fact already promised to support British Steel with subventions. I can understand that. But whenever I talk about free trade, comments always cite China as if the entire free trade issue hinged on one rapacious dictatorship. We need to distinguish the purist arguments (mine) from the special cases. I would certainly support the argument for applying taxpayers' money to save British Steel - but ONLY if BS has a plan in place for improving its competitive position - even against China. There have to be limits. Emile

• joe slater 1642again  an hour ago

China invested massively in steel because it needed steel in massive amounts for its own economy. If it managed to produce good stuff cheaply because of this massive investment, tough. That's the market. I know Chinese quality is extremely variable, including steel, but like the Japanese in the 1980s, they are being punished for being ambitious and efficient. I don't blame them for trying to break their dependence on Western technology, and copying Japanese methods. There is a lot of arrogance on the US side in this. Their market is nothing like as "closed" as the Japanese one was until very recently. Cars are a case in point. It is still hard to find foreign cars in Japan and Korea. In China, you struggle to find Chinese brands at the high end.

• • • • •

Euseless  joe slater • an hour ago The idea is to sell China things they need, rather than to buy things they no longer need. That is rewarding failure.

• • • • • •

  Show more replies

Euseless  1642again • an hour ago There is no greater mecantilist force in World Trade than China. I am unsure Emile recognises or accounts for that.

1642again  Euseless • an hour ago Sadly he doesn't because he does not suggest how to address the likes of China, but merely advocates the benefits of free trade - something I don't think exists because of human nature and national interests.

• Emile Woolf 1642again  8 minutes ago
• OK - Guilty as charged. But please, in mitigation, see my above points in my replies to 1642 again and Joe Slater, to save me repeating myself and boring you. I am delighted with the responses - remember that my whole purpose is to alert our next chancellor to the merits of free trade so that when he is battling with morons, he does not lose sight of what is real. Emile

• Euseless  1642again • an hour ago

Allowing China into the WTo without first agreeing it would both staged and monitored before being enforced was a huge error. Bit a lot of well connected people got insanely rich. 1642again  Euseless • an hour ago Another way China corrupts itself way into the West.

• • • 2 

Euseless  1642again • an hour ago I remember reading Kissingers memoirs in the Suzhou hotel where Mao, Nixon and Kissinger first met. He was struck not by the horrifying conditions of the populace but instead by the control administered by the state.

• • • • •

 

Harry Meneely  1642again • an hour ago Would you prevent US companies setting up manufacturing plants in China...to increase their profits through cheap labour?

• • 1 

Euseless  Harry Meneely • an hour ago If they are happy paying a large tarrif for behaving in such a manner then of course.

• • • 1 

Harry Meneely  Euseless • an hour ago Who pays the tariff?

Euseless  Harry Meneely • an hour ago The company, the consumer who choses to purchase.

LetEnglandShake  Euseless • an hour ago • edited There's not a lot of choice when it comes to water. Chinese 1642again  Emile Woolf • 15 minutes ago Your articles are arguments for sanity Emile but when does international politics display much sanity? I generally agree with your arguments btw, especially in relation to fiscal policy . Emile Woolf  1642again • 4 minutes ago Of course, that's right. But in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and it is not the answer to blind him too. I can tell from responses that my apparent idealism does not fall on fallow ground - so there remain some point in sounding reveille? Anyway I can't help it, so as long as Swiss Bob tolerates them, I'll send them!