Dear Editor,

Trading is basically about one hand washing the other. For if one is self-sufficient, the need would not arise for imposing import taxes on goods and services against your trading partners.

As things are, no island is actually an island or a country, a country. The common understanding is that the rational for imposing tarrifs is to protect domestic markets and local jobs while generating revenue for the Government by imposing a tax on imported goods. But there must be a mutual benefit for it to be worthwhile. For example, you need tea to meet the demands of your tea-drinking population, and I like a little milk in my coffee. But while I produce tea, you don’t, you produce milk. Seems like the perfect opportunity for one hand to wash the other.

But trading may not be this simple, for imports are not necessarily a reflection of a country’s scarcity of resources. Cost effectiveness and quality could cause a country to import what it already produces.

Although tarrifs are intended to protect local industries and jobs, the opposite can occur when self-interest causes the vision to become overly fixated and myopic. It is widely understood that tarrifs on import goods will result in increased cost to local consumers if they are not prepared to boycott those items.

Furthermore, inflation is a by-product of counter tarrifs and as the chess board of countermoves intensifies into a trade war, global trading becomes disrupted and jobs which rely on international trade are jeopardised or lost.

A trade war could also lead to restricting the choices of consumers or forcing them to buy items at a higher price, resulting in unintended consequences.

Homer Sylvester

h2sylvester@gmail.com