It's incorrect to think that losing access to markets is beneficial for anyone, which is why using it as a bargaining chip to make people stop murdering each other is a good thing. Even if this imaginary Global South organization had another provider for goods, they're at risk of being abused or manipulated by a lower number of trade partners who can increase prices at will.

I'm sorry that you disagree.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Some markets aren’t worth the trouble. It is not like Iran is losing access to China. It is losing access to a market that it had very limited access to if any.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Competition drives prices down. Bare minimum economic theory for you, you're welcome for that.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 22 points 6 months ago

Who is going to undercut the Chinese? This I want to see. Maybe the Europeans shouldn't slap tariffs on Chinese products then.

[–] SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net 17 points 6 months ago

smuglord

[–] appel@whiskers.bim.boats 20 points 6 months ago

Provider for goods? What are you on about? Western nations outsource all production to the global south (pretty much) and the only thing they make is overpriced software (hyperbole)

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago

It’s incorrect to think that losing access to markets is beneficial for anyone

It almost never is, but in this case the Global North’s sanctions are forcing the Global South to build alliances amongst themselves, and this shift is likely to be quite durable.

Geopolitical Economy Hour, Apr. 2023: Russia Leaves the Neoliberal West to Join the World Majority