Maybe because people don't have unlimited amount of time to keep up-to-date on all data and research on toxicity, negative health effects, safety, etc on tens of thousands of products from a couple hundred countries.
Any product could apply for regulatory approval in the country where it is being sold. If the product does not get regulatory approval, it could be sold in a special shop, so customers are aware that they are taking a risk. That lets customers choose for themselves whether they want to take the risk.
Because people don't look at country of origin. They are mostly price sensitive.
If you allow imports from countries with looser regulations, you are basically putting your own sectors at a competitive disavantage in your own market. It's akin to killing it basically.
It's obviously extremely stupid but in the case of the Mercosur agreement, predictably Germany doesn't care because the agribusiness is in France and they themselves will be able to export their cars.
Generally speaking, Germany never cares about deeply shafting the rest of the union when it gives them a small advantage. See also how their economy is deeply unbalanced, they have under invested for decades and they only survive because they are part of a monetary union devoid of a fiscal union giving them the tremendous advantage of an undervalued currency at the expense of basically every southern members. See also how they made joining the currency union mandatory for entering the common market and are pushing for adding more poor eastern countries to exploit which also conveniently vote for the EPP and dillute any chance the southern countries could ally to oppose them.
Obviously, the currency union has no clear path to exit it.
1. More euro using countries with weaker economies ensure the euro stay as low as possible which is insanely advantageous for Germany, a country which has built all its economy on exports. Plus it provides a new outcome for the German excess savings via credits which will amplify the unbalancing created by the monetary policies and add a vicious extractive cycle on top.
2. These countries tend to prioritise their immediate safety from Russia to any economical considerations and are strongly NATO aligned. They have historically voted for parties which are close to the EPP, the currently dominant European party which is itself controlled by and subservient to German interests. See how Von Der Leyen was basically saved by Poland in 2024. This ensure the EPP remains the dominant force in Europe and significantly dilutes the voices of countries strongly disavantaged by how the eurozone is working and which could be tempted to ally to try to push reforms (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, France). Generally, expension strongly favours the current status quo, itself extremely favourable to Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.
I'm confused, Europeans on HN are always telling me how NATO is a big scheme the US uses to keep the dollar strong. Now you're telling me the EPP is a big scheme from Germany to keep the euro weak. Something's not adding up.
This requires some actual history, not just memes and conspiracy theories.
Originally, it was the French during Mitterrand times who pushed for a unified European currency. Kohl granted it to them in exchange for their consent to unify Germany, but wasn't happy about it, because he knew that conservative German voters were attached to the strength of the Deutsche Mark.
Nevertheless, 15-20 years on, it actually turned out that a weaker euro was a problem for industry in places like France and Italy, while supporting German exports. Germany had a streak of really strong exports.
Nowadays, it does not matter anymore, though. Aging of the population, expensive energies, bureaucracy gone wild and bad immigration policies have made Germany a sick man of Europe again. When it comes to raw industrial growth, the strongest player in the EU is now Poland, which does not even use the euro.
The EPP is a political party not a scheme but yes, Germany benefits immensely from a weak euro as a net exporter and the way the eurozone is structured, as a monetary union without a fiscal union, and how it operates, roughly with transfers being very limited, a big no no for the population of the advantaged countries if not an impossibility considering the historical rulings of the German constitutional court, ensure it stays this way.
I have no personal opinion on NATO being a big scheme to keep the dollar strong. I personally think its creation had more to do with limiting the spread of the USSR and ensuring the former European empires remained in vassal positions following the second world war. Still, as a net importer, the USA generally benefits from a strong dollar. The dollar is in a fairly unique position anyway as it remains the internation reserve currency.
I fail to see what's not adding up here personnaly.
Replying to inglor_cz here because dang rate limited me because one of my post about Rust was apparently grounded but written in what dang considers a "flamebaity" way while being highly upvoted:
To me, that's a deep misrepresentation of the systemic issue at stake.
Germany didn't magically happen to have strong exports while it became an issue for France and Italy. That's a structural feature of the monetary union. The euro was always going to be weaker that the DM and stronger than the Lira. That gives an inherent advantage to Germany and conversely deeply disavantage Italy. That's why there never was a currency union without transfers in history before the euro. It plainly can't work.
What Mitterand and Delor did was take a gamble. They pushed for an unsustainable currency union hoping it would extend to a fully featured fiscal union when a crisis inevitably came. Sadly, that's not what happened when said crisis came and we are now stuck with a setup which is either slowly erroding the competitivity of the periphery or forcing it into pro-cycle austerity in the name of a political doctrine it never chose while it favors a few core countries widely misallocating their excess savings while pretending to be virtuous. Our saving grace
It's obviously completely unsustainable hence the constant rise of extremist parties in the perepheric countries but like a good quasi-neocolonial setup, you will see a lot of people actually defend it with arguments which are roughly the same as the one the empires used to use: leaving will be economical ruin, the alternative is chaos, you obviously can't manage your economy without us.
It's no surprise the strongest industrial player in the EU is becoming Poland. It is because they are out of the euro. Look at how while they are theorically forced to join by the treaty, they are doing everything they can to stay out.
Amusingly, we might all end up being saved by Trump because tariffs on top of two decades of systemic underinvestements have put the German economy so out of balance, we might finally witness the end of ordoliberalism.
>Still, as a net importer, the USA generally benefits from a strong dollar. The dollar is in a fairly unique position anyway as it remains the internation reserve currency.
I would say the causality goes the other way, we are a net importer because foreigners need dollars since they are the reserve currency.
The euro being undervalued is a relative statement. It’s undervalued for Germany in the sense that considering Germany current policies and trade balance, an equivalent German only currency would be considerably stronger. That’s a significant part of how Germany remains competitive despite investing so little in their productivity.
Conversely, it’s extremely overvalued for the economy of the periphery. If you look at their trade balance and policies, their own currency would be far weaker. Paradoxically this would be a boon for them. Sure it would impact their ability to import but it would make their exports far cheaper in relative terms.
Adding country with economy pulling down the value of the euro is therefore extremely advantageous to Germany at the expense of the periphery. This is by design. A currency union can’t work without transfers.
That’s why it’s extremely unfair to impose the euro as part of the criteria for joining and why you see country like Poland doing its best to not join. Sadly, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy are stuck in. I personally can’t refrain from strongly resenting the union every time I see someone from the advantaged core pretending to be morally virtuous while being the direct beneficiary of one of the most unfair transfer setup since decolonisation and pretend the south should just go with austerity which is the exact reverse of what’s actually needed (investment and devaluation).
I somehow understand how we got there and the weight the completely botched unification of Germany in 1990 carries in it. It doesn’t really make the pill easier to swallow.
The EU already has country of origin requirements. They still had to specify things like "X% of the product has to be made in country Y to be qualified for the 'made in Y' label". And even that can and does get muddy.
For the purpose of this discussion, the % made in country Y doesn't matter--the important thing is whether the product is compliant with regulations in country Y.
Using the same idea, are you personally for legalizing all drugs as well or not requiring doctors to be licensed? Because I think there are lots of things forbidden/regulated across the world, mostly because people do not to make (or are not able to make due to lack of information) the best decisions for them, and then society suffers as a whole.
Me personally, if I have to choose between food 10% cheaper that will give 1 in 1000 people a cancer, or eating something more local/boring I prefer the latter, even if I would never buy it myself.
I already stated in this thread that I'm in favor of smart regulation, not zero regulation. For example, instead of government licensing of doctors, I would be interested in a more elegant solution like requiring all doctors to carry malpractice insurance and publish information about the insurance rate they're currently paying. If graduating from a particular medical school is truly associated with reduced malpractice rates, that should be reflected in lower insurance rates for those doctors. Insurers would design their own exams which would probably be better than government licensing exams since insurers have skin in the game.
The problem is the "root of trust". Someone has to decide if it was "malpractice" or not. The doctor (and the insurer) have the interest to say "it was the best service we could provide", and even if you involve a lawsuit/judge/etc., they will have no clue who is correct. And if you have a "root of trust", they can directly test/manage the doctors (the current system).
Returning to the topic to which I responded: I prefer some organization responsible to make and check a set of rules about food, rather than each person to have to do their own research (and the first does not exclude anyhow the second). I find that smart in the sense that it will reuse knowledge of some people and will not require a lot of people learning a lot of things. I have the impression that I do care about food quality more than the average, so I am not at all worried about too strict requirements.
You don't let customer to decide if they love pesticide or not, their are basic functions even to a minimal state and environment and health protection is among them.
