The European Commission has taken an important step. It offers the establishment of a rate of 2 euros in each small package of Asia. In the sight: the online trade giants who are Shein and Temu. Behind this technical measure a crucial question is played: Should Europe, in turn, build China’s commercial victim?
When the United States squeezes the stitches of its customs network
On the other side of the Atlantic, the answer was not long to arrive. Washington brutally closed the door to these cascade imports. When packages of less than $ 800 reached any tax until then, the Biden administration has established a double block: customs tariffs that reach 54 % and a flat rate tax of $ 100.
The result was spectacular: in three months, Chinese exports to the United States submerged in 65 %, which resulted in a sales drop for Shein and Temu. At the same time, US brands resumed colors.
But while the United States muscular its commercial borders, sales of fast fashion China increased by 28 % in Europe. In other words, the European Union becomes the rear boutique of a deregulated system that the United States no longer wants to tolerate. This obviously raises: it is not a matter of prohibiting, but of putting the order again.
It is not a commercial war, but a fair framework
Should we prohibit Shein and Temu? No. But should we continue to offer them a fiscal, social and environmental pass? Certainly not.
The problem is not its origin, but the diversion of the rules that exploit happily: tax optimization, standard standard production, ecological discharge … It is not liberalism. It is parasitism.
Walter Eucken, father of German ordoliberalism, understood this in the 1950s: “The proper functioning of a market economy implies a clear economic order, guaranteed by the State.” Without rules, the market is no longer an engine of prosperity, but a jungle without law.
Letting 800 million plots enter France, more than 90% come directly from China, it is not from commerce, it is a relocation disguised, delivered at home at the expense of the taxpayer.
Liberalism, yes; naivety, no
Should we close our borders to Asian products? Or prohibit brands such as Decatlon, Kiabi or Zara from obtaining their supplies in China?
Neither. These groups invest in French soil, create employment, pay taxes, participate in the real economy. Free trade remains an opportunity, whenever it is part of a fair environment.
Wilhelm Röpke, another thinker of Ordoliberalism, recalled that the market must be “integrated into solid social and legal institutions.” Shein and Temu, today, work on the outskirts of these institutions. They do not play the game. Worse: they distort the game.
It is not about protecting the weak from the forts, but ensuring that competition is based on loyal bases. Free trade cannot be confused with economic suicide. Requires counterparts. Requires reciprocity.
Commerce, yes. Naivety, no.
Source: BFM TV
