By admitting that it can reduce as a measure to contain the sector, recognizes an inescapable fact: commercial barriers make products more expensive in the domestic market. The pragmatism of the measure exposes an obvious reality for economists for decades: Brazil is one of the most closed economies in the world, and this condition restricts supply, limits competition and penalizing the consumer. There is no magic solution for inflation.
As you pointed out here in Sheetfactors such as the 2023 currency devaluation, which reached 27%, and the need for fiscal adjustment. The heated labor market also presses prices, especially in the service sector, whose underlying inflation reached 8.80% in the three months ending in January 2025. Nevertheless, trade policy has a direct impact on prices, and there is no justification to maintain barriers that raise costs and limit offering.
(FPA) reacted to the government’s proposal with predictable objections. Part of the sector claims that the measure is hurried, that there is no shortages and prices follow global patterns. However, they ignore that by artificially protecting local production, they create inefficiencies and prevent the population from accessing cheaper products in the international market. Protectionism only transfers costs to consumers and reduces the competitiveness of the Brazilian.
In the industrial sector, critics often claim that commercial opening harms. However, economic history contradicts this view. According to a survey by Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard professor and author of academic bestsellers, revealed that 93% of economists agree that “imports and import quotas usually reduce general economic well-being.” Even economists internationally known for left -wide positions, as they argue that Brazil would have significant gains with greater integration with global trade.
Outside Brazil, it has been discussed that tariffs proposed by significantly raise prices in the United States, affecting from electronics and cars to food and clothing. In addition to the direct inflationary impact, these tariffs can trigger commercial retaliation, impairing exports and sectors such as agriculture and auto industry.
With the increase in import costs, the Federal Reserve can be forced to increase the rates of credit and reducing the purchasing power of consumers. Although some industries can gain internal competitiveness in the short term, imports dependent on imports such as retail and technology, may face job cuts. In addition, Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute points out that recent US commercial policies, both under Trump and Biden, were less about trade and more about domestic and electoral policy.
While Trump for commercial agreements, Biden kept and expanded tariff barriers without seeking new free trade negotiations. The result was a commercial isolation that weakened American competitiveness, while the rest of the world continued to close trade agreements, benefiting foreign companies and consumers.
In the long run, commercial opening favors economic efficiency, competitiveness and integration of. It is not about increasing imports only, but creating conditions for the country to expand its exports and participate more actively in global value chains.
If the government recognizes that high rates impair access to cheaper foods, why not extend this reasoning to the whole economy? Reducing commercial barriers is a strategic choice to ensure a more competitive, innovative and accessible Brazil for those who can’t spend a holiday in Miami.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
