This reminds me of arguing with my father. He always claims that since products could just be moved through an intermediary country to bypass sanctions and markets are efficient and equalizing, that embargoes and sanctions were meaningless gestures. His proof was when he was sourcing parts for a machine he was designing at work, one of the options was to buy an Iranian part with a Chinese firm as a middle man. So since he could still get Iranian parts, the sanctions meant nothing.
Does that not increase the price of the product compared to if he was allowed to trade with Iran directly, basically enriching China (in this example) at Iran and his expense? Like, I think they're an ineffective method of political pressure (locals usually blame the party doing the sanctioning, not their local government), but I don't think they do nothing.
Exactly, it does undermine trade and make any products that go through more expensive/less lucrative. Back filling my understanding of his logic, the fact that they could get around the sanctions at all, then there could be competition of being the firm acting as the middleman and they also have to be competitive with non-sanctioned nations, which means that the extra expense would become negligible.
I think historically that has not been the case. But also libertarian market worshippers tend to eschew actual data in favour of perfectly spherical corporate entities with lines tending towards infinity.
Exactly, I was recounting arguments where I disagree with him and this was his explanation as why Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are poor because of socialism, since the sanctions and embargoes could have nothing to do with it.
This reminds me of arguing with my father. He always claims that since products could just be moved through an intermediary country to bypass sanctions and markets are efficient and equalizing, that embargoes and sanctions were meaningless gestures. His proof was when he was sourcing parts for a machine he was designing at work, one of the options was to buy an Iranian part with a Chinese firm as a middle man. So since he could still get Iranian parts, the sanctions meant nothing.
Does that not increase the price of the product compared to if he was allowed to trade with Iran directly, basically enriching China (in this example) at Iran and his expense? Like, I think they're an ineffective method of political pressure (locals usually blame the party doing the sanctioning, not their local government), but I don't think they do nothing.
Exactly, it does undermine trade and make any products that go through more expensive/less lucrative. Back filling my understanding of his logic, the fact that they could get around the sanctions at all, then there could be competition of being the firm acting as the middleman and they also have to be competitive with non-sanctioned nations, which means that the extra expense would become negligible.
I think historically that has not been the case. But also libertarian market worshippers tend to eschew actual data in favour of perfectly spherical corporate entities with lines tending towards infinity.
Exactly, I was recounting arguments where I disagree with him and this was his explanation as why Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are poor because of socialism, since the sanctions and embargoes could have nothing to do with it.
I am angered on your behalf.
his argument is basically the geopolitical version of "speeding fines only affect the poor" but presented as if a rebuttal lol.