Interesting piece..but isn’t this somewhat contradictory to your regualr position on trade? (even though the spirit of this is in the right place)

“Because Marks & Spencer have huge buying power, they can negotiate cheap prices with the people who make them in China to the point where the prices are at rock bottom” The Country with this policy hasn’t done this to boost local production capacity or drive their texile industry. The aim is maximum benefit for consumers by ensuring that prices remain low and uniforms are affordable.

A country that is better at everything will still be “most better”, so to speak, at something. It should concentrate on that, Ricardo showed, importing what its neighbours do “least worse”.- The economist piece.

Will Nigeria ever be able to achieve the scale China has? If she won’t, how then will Nigeria ever compete on a price basis with Chinese imports? Working parents are going to subsidise an Industry that will also be enabled by Govt tariffs (calculated here as the Chinese factory costs + shipping). The tariffs will only be effective if there’s ever a time in future that Nigerian uniforms can match the price of Chinese uniforms, otherwise importing will remain profitable and a least cost least risk venture.

While I understand the need to solve our unemployment crisis, I think it’s fair to use the same arguments you have against the country producing steel (Ajaokuta magic city) due to the glut from China against the one you’ve tendered here (+your campaign against the AutoIndustry). As a self declared advocate for free trade, I find this a big departure. Let’s focus on what we are/can be good at, rather than compete in a market with prices we can’t match.

I know this was an example, but it comes at too big a price for entire economy.