Thread by @EmporersNewC

In which case, I'd like to go further, because while it's a good thing, it's not a good thing overall as far as policy goes. (Thread)

https://twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1417048508444692482

In the context of "The Great Unbundling" developing countries are losing out.

What's the Great Unbundling I hear you ask?

Basically in a complex supply chain, production processes are done where it is cheapest.

Some of the poorer countries have poor electricity, poor access to water, and bad road infrastructure and this doesn't make the great candidates to be in the middle of a supply chain.

And not being part of a supply chain means they are less likely to be effected by Rules of Origin.

More affluent country investors and industries are more likely to want to rely on those countries for raw materials and ingredients.

Leaving domestically invested industry, and as we know, poor countries are going to have less money to do that.

A much bigger benefit would be investment in the very things that makes the production processes in these countries less competitive in the global supply chain.

Money to improve electricity supply, water, road and rail infrastructure.

And that's done with:

Foreign aid.

That will help both domestic production and international investment, the latter being the biggest problem for these countries in terms of improving their economic situation.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, we're cutting foreign aid.

So while, yes, this is beneficial, I'm not how beneficial it is, but I do know that on the balance sheet, it's most likely still negative as a result of our foreign aid cuts.

It's not either/or, the fact is, the more investment the UK is willing to make to help these countries become investable, the more beneficial these trade changes will be.

/End