Interesting. I was in a UK supermarket the other day and the asparagus on offer was from Spain and Mexico. The Mexican variety was cheaper, and just as good. Currently, Mexico pays a 14.4% common external tariff on this product, and it's still cheaper than what the EU (with it's massive array of agricultural subsidy) can produce. I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg.
That may be because the minimum wages are massively different for the two countries, with $0.48/hr in Mexico vs $4.98/hr in Spain[1]. Globalism does exploit the lower standard of living of other countries, after all. That means that even though there are massive tariffs, these "third world" countries can still make a profit because of the abysmal quality of life for its citizens.
Of course it's because of wages! The point is, it is because of protectionism that Mexican and African farmers cant sell their products in to the EU at a fair price, and once outside the customs union, the poorest consumers in the UK and the poorest farmers in the world both stand to benefit. Global trade is lifting billions of the poorest people out of poverty, and long may it continue.
It's true that globalization is raising the average income of people in many places in the world, but it is also causing an increase in inequality within most countries[1]. It's not fair to the middle class of a country when it needs to compete against a country that doesn't have the same environmental or labor laws that it has. This leads to a race to the bottom and tanks the quality of life for most people, though the capital owners get out ahead. Why can't those countries form their own industries?
Serious question: What keeps Mexico and other smaller countries from forming their own industries and get their own economy going? Because if it's a systemic or governmental issue keeping their economy down, then why would we want to support that inefficient thing keeping it all down?
This is the UK's largest supermarket chain, so this it's hardly anecdotal evidence; What I said is verifiable, and doesn't rely on my own witness account.
Meanwhile, a statement like My weekly supermarket bill has been going up since the Brexit vote is completely meaningless.
> anecdotal: not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
By definition, it is anecdotal. A single piece of price data observed only by you with no evidence is not proof that EU grown vegetables are more expensive than those from Mexico.
To say that someones supermarket bill going up is somehow more anecdotal than "I found asparagus from Spain that cost more than asparagus from Mexico" is absurd.
Not really; there are differences between the two - a price differential is something that could possibly be checked, reasonably objective fact that inferences can be drawn from. Someone's weekly supermarket choices are not fixed like the cost-of-living index basket of goods, they are entirely subjective and will change, sometimes hugely, from week to week without anything needing to alter in the world economy, and the fact that a bill is reported as being higher does not allow me to make useful predictions.
I'm providing empirical evidence of a verifiable claim that is either true or false. You can argue about the rigorousness of the claim, but regardless it can be independently verified.
Empirical evidence justifies or disproves a claim. A single point of data does not justify the claim that vegetables from Mexico are cheaper than vegetables from the EU - all you have done is state that you once found a vegetable from one source country for cheaper than the same vegetable from another country - you haven't provided any evidence what-so-ever (the name of the supermarket, the prices, the volumes, the different brands), just made a claim.
Empirical evidence in this case would be a large scale survey of the prices of comparable vegetables across multiple supermarkets, over a long period (several years to cover seasonal variance in prices).
It's one datapoint alongside a well know fact that Southern European vegetables are more expensive atm because of a bad winter.
You have pointed out one good amongst thousands that was cheaper when it came from outside the EU. I'm sure there are many others but that's irrelevant. Those specific goods does not mean that this is the result of the EU. What everyone is afraid of is what will happen if tariffs are applied to EU goods when they come into the UK.
Given that Spain is still recovering from flooding, cold weather and a bunch of other issues [1] that have made growing vegetables impossible in many areas, that's not really a surprise.
This was only in a small part of Spain, mostly turistic. Those places full of english expatriates are always overrepresented in english newspapers IMHO, giving a false impression. It can seem worst that it is also. Free water means literally free money fallen from the sky and of course those big companies have enough muscle and resources to replace the plastic greenhouses and restart quickly.
The winter was not particularly hard. I remember a bad couple of weeks. Not much more. A little chill is good for most fruits.
Casually, I has aubergines for dining today. It seems that the problem to find spanish vegetables in the market is solved.
Vegetables don't just magically appear in minutes - they take weeks or months to grow, so bad winter has an effect which can last for most of the year.
That's because we are early in the asparagus season, and Mexico is a warmer country. Wait a couple of weeks and you will see mostly Spanish asparagus. A couple of more weeks and it will be British.
Interesting. I was in a UK supermarket the other day and the asparagus on offer was from Spain and Mexico. The Mexican variety was cheaper, and just as good. Currently, Mexico pays a 14.4% common external tariff on this product, and it's still cheaper than what the EU (with it's massive array of agricultural subsidy) can produce. I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg.