Quote from: Supposn on April 11, 2012, 05:16:08 AM
West2004, we agree as I described in reply #16, transactions are carried out by individual customers, entrepreneurs, enterprises and their managements.  People not nation negotiate and decide.  I also explained and I think you may agree that although individuals and enterprises do what they believe is their comparative advantage, (and they are generally correct), what's to the advantage of the commerce may not always be to the advantage of the entire nation.

Sometimes they diverge.  We often rationalize what's to our best advantage is also to the advantage of our nation.  It's not unusual to rationalize that what to our advantage is to the nation's absolutely best advantage.

It is for that reason that an example of what's to an individual commercial enterprise's advantage is not my prime concern.  My concern is the nation's comparative advantage.

Regarding comparative advantage, one of this proposal's characteristics is complete free and competitive enterprise.  Under an Import Certificate policy, individual enterprises would be of no less competitive advantage than what we now experience by seeking absolute free trade.  Because the policy will significantly decrease our trade deficit which increases our GDP and bolsters our median wage.  Our entire nation' economy is improved for all of us.

Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".
Respectfully, Supposn

There are sooo many problems with your ideas.
One, is the fact that not all imports are complete products, some may be less than 1% of a product, but you want gov to oversee a PRIVATE company and its PRIVATE books to levy a tax, or fine for noncompliance, which adds about 25% of time from the producer to deal with red tape and steal from employees time to deal with it.

You are advocating more and bigger gov to regulate a FREE mkt.
Do you have any idea of the cost involved in such a scheme, or just how big the payroll would be to complete such a task? (paid by the taxpayer)
Then there is the issue of Constitutionality, of which it is not, though there is precedent.
But you want to give gov even more search and seizure power, does this not strike you as a bit odd?

You are also advocating that Gov micromanage our economy.
Everything the Gov touches, it bogs down to a crawl through bureaucracy.
In other words, you are stifling innovation and dragging it through a swamp of red tape.

Heres a thought, how about we get Gov out of the way and get its hands off the private industry, including agriculture, and let the free mkt do what it does best, produce.

Quote from: west2004 on April 11, 2012, 05:17:23 AM
...........I would like to see the formula you speak about regarding GDP calculation.....................

West2004,
Excerpted from
http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/gross-domestic-product.asp#ixzz1rywCT6YJ

Macroeconomics - Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Two different approaches are used to calculate GDP. In theory, the amount spent for goods and services should be equal to the income paid to produce the goods and services, and other costs associated with those goods and services. Calculating GDP by adding up expenditures is called the expenditure approach, and computing GDP by examining income for resources (sometimes referred to as gross domestic income, or GDI, is known as the resource cost/income approach.

Expenditure Approach
The expenditure approach utilizes four main components:

Consumption (C) - These are personal consumption expenditures. They are typically broken down into the following categories: durable goods, non-durable goods, and services.

Investment (I) - This is gross private investment; it is generally broken down into fixed investment and changes in business inventories.

Government (G) - This category includes government spending on items that are "consumed" in the current period, such as office supplies and gasoline; and also capital goods, such as highways, missiles, and dams. Note that transfer payments are not included in GDP, as they are not part of current production.

Net Exports - This is calculated by subtracting a nations imports (M)from exports (X). Imports are goods and services produced outside the country and consumed within, and exports are goods and services produced domestically and sold to foreigners. Note that this number may be negative, which has occurred in the U.S. for the last several years. Net exports for the U.S. were minus $606 billion during calendar year 2004 (as per Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce June 29, 2005 press release).

Formula 4.1

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)



Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/gross-domestic-product.asp#ixzz1rywCT6YJ

Quote from: Supposn on April 13, 2012, 08:43:00 PM
West2004,
Excerpted from
http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/gross-domestic-product.asp#ixzz1rywCT6YJ

Macroeconomics - Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Two different approaches are used to calculate GDP. In theory, the amount spent for goods and services should be equal to the income paid to produce the goods and services, and other costs associated with those goods and services. Calculating GDP by adding up expenditures is called the expenditure approach, and computing GDP by examining income for resources (sometimes referred to as gross domestic income, or GDI, is known as the resource cost/income approach.

Expenditure Approach
The expenditure approach utilizes four main components:

Consumption (C) - These are personal consumption expenditures. They are typically broken down into the following categories: durable goods, non-durable goods, and services.

Investment (I) - This is gross private investment; it is generally broken down into fixed investment and changes in business inventories.

Government (G) - This category includes government spending on items that are "consumed" in the current period, such as office supplies and gasoline; and also capital goods, such as highways, missiles, and dams. Note that transfer payments are not included in GDP, as they are not part of current production.

Net Exports - This is calculated by subtracting a nations imports (M)from exports (X). Imports are goods and services produced outside the country and consumed within, and exports are goods and services produced domestically and sold to foreigners. Note that this number may be negative, which has occurred in the U.S. for the last several years. Net exports for the U.S. were minus $606 billion during calendar year 2004 (as per Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce June 29, 2005 press release).

Formula 4.1

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)



Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/gross-domestic-product.asp#ixzz1rywCT6YJ

Ok, so what makes this a proper measure of the strength and health of the economy or economic growth?

Also, if a drop in (X-M) were to lead to an increase in I that is greater than the decrease in (X-M) (as economic theory dictates that it will), would that not be beneficial to the economy and GDP?

The problem with your theory, is that it assumes that one factor can change without impacting the others.  Imports occur because the goods imported are more efficient in capital application than those found domestically, otherwise the import would not happen.  Making investment more efficient and increasing return on investment leads to more investment and a greater growth of wealth to then reinvest.  All of this means a more solid and strong economy.

Quote from: Supposn on April 13, 2012, 08:43:00 PM
West2004,
Excerpted from
http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/gross-domestic-product.asp#ixzz1rywCT6YJ

Macroeconomics - Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Two different approaches are used to calculate GDP. In theory, the amount spent for goods and services should be equal to the income paid to produce the goods and services, and other costs associated with those goods and services. Calculating GDP by adding up expenditures is called the expenditure approach, and computing GDP by examining income for resources (sometimes referred to as gross domestic income, or GDI, is known as the resource cost/income approach.

Expenditure Approach
The expenditure approach utilizes four main components:

Consumption (C) - These are personal consumption expenditures. They are typically broken down into the following categories: durable goods, non-durable goods, and services.

Investment (I) - This is gross private investment; it is generally broken down into fixed investment and changes in business inventories.

Government (G) - This category includes government spending on items that are "consumed" in the current period, such as office supplies and gasoline; and also capital goods, such as highways, missiles, and dams. Note that transfer payments are not included in GDP, as they are not part of current production.

Net Exports - This is calculated by subtracting a nations imports (M)from exports (X). Imports are goods and services produced outside the country and consumed within, and exports are goods and services produced domestically and sold to foreigners. Note that this number may be negative, which has occurred in the U.S. for the last several years. Net exports for the U.S. were minus $606 billion during calendar year 2004 (as per Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce June 29, 2005 press release).

Formula 4.1

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)



Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/gross-domestic-product.asp#ixzz1rywCT6YJ

Marx would be proud of you.

The United States is often described as a "capitalist" economy, a term coined by 19th-century German economist and social theorist Karl Marx to describe a system in which a small group of people who control large amounts of money, or capital, make the most important economic decisions. Marx contrasted capitalist economies to "socialist" ones, which vest more power in the political system. Marx and his followers believed that capitalist economies concentrate power in the hands of wealthy business people, who aim mainly to maximize profits; socialist economies, on the other hand, would be more likely to feature greater control by government, which tends to put political aims -- a more equal distribution of society's resources, for instance -- ahead of profits.

Quote from: Solar on April 14, 2012, 07:34:46 AM
Marx would be proud of you.

The United States is often described as a "capitalist" economy, a term coined by 19th-century German economist and social theorist Karl Marx to describe a system in which a small group of people who control large amounts of money, or capital, make the most important economic decisions. Marx contrasted capitalist economies to "socialist" ones, which vest more power in the political system. Marx and his followers believed that capitalist economies concentrate power in the hands of wealthy business people, who aim mainly to maximize profits; socialist economies, on the other hand, would be more likely to feature greater control by government, which tends to put political aims -- a more equal distribution of society's resources, for instance -- ahead of profits.

Marx wasn't interested in a more equal distribution of societies resources, he was more interested in a more equal distribution of the fruits of capitalism. Like making sure that bearded Germans who sat around the British Museum writing political treatises, got paid also. Where Marx got it dead wrong, was in his belief that the only way to increase profits was to squeeze the workers. To avoid being reduced to penury, the workers would eventually have to take charge. Marx - like all the Marxist who followed him sees society as basically zero sum. Understandable since he came out of a society - Germany - which was still mainly agricultural, and land is finite. The idea that capitalism was making goods so inexpensive that even the poor could afford them - and thus became a market - never occurred to him.

Quote from: mdgiles on April 14, 2012, 07:48:19 AM
Marx wasn't interested in a more equal distribution of societies resources, he was more interested in a more equal distribution of the fruits of capitalism. Like making sure that bearded Germans who sat around the British Museum writing political treatises, got paid also. Where Marx got it dead wrong, was in his belief that the only way to increase profits was to squeeze the workers. To avoid being reduced to penury, the workers would eventually have to take charge. Marx - like all the Marxist who followed him sees society as basically zero sum. Understandable since he came out of a society - Germany - which was still mainly agricultural, and land is finite. The idea that capitalism was making goods so inexpensive that even the poor could afford them - and thus became a market - never occurred to him.

I know what Marx was advocating, I'm just trying to get Supposin to connect the dots.
Basically he is advocating the Marxist ideal, over a free mkt system.

Quote from: Solar on April 14, 2012, 07:59:04 AM
I know what Marx was advocating, I'm just trying to get Supposin to connect the dots.
Basically he is advocating the Marxist ideal, over a free mkt system.

Actually what he's advocating is an enormous new source of political corruption and graft.

Quote from: Solar on April 11, 2012, 07:38:35 AM
There are sooo many problems with your ideas.
One, is the fact that not all imports are complete products, some may be less than 1% of a product, but you want gov to oversee a PRIVATE company and its PRIVATE books to levy a tax, or fine for noncompliance, which adds about 25% of time from the producer to deal with red tape and steal from employees time to deal with it.

You are advocating more and bigger gov to regulate a FREE mkt.
Do you have any idea of the cost involved in such a scheme, or just how big the payroll would be to complete such a task? (paid by the taxpayer)
Then there is the issue of Constitutionality, of which it is not, though there is precedent.
But you want to give gov even more search and seizure power, does this not strike you as a bit odd?..........................

Solar, why are you advocating greater complexity?
This proposal involves assessment of imports and exports.  Assessments of imports are mandatory.

Any exporter of U.S. goods that is reluctant to earning more money can choose not to pay the federal fees (which defray all direct annual federal expenses due to this proposal).  In such a case their goods are shipped from the USA without being assessed and no Import Certificates (based upon the value of that shipment would be issued.

Federal assessors look only upon individual shipments' invoices and those shipments can be subject to physical examination.  This has nothing to do with income tax, or account books.

Why are you concerned about the nature of goods being assessed?
There is a list of specific scarce or precious minerals; estimated values of such minerals integral to assessed goods are deducted from those goods assessed values.
Components, commodities, materials or finished goods are all assessed in the same manner.

All direct federal expenses are defrayed by U.S. goods exporters' voluntary payments of fees.  All of expenses are eventually and entirely paid by U.S. purchasers of imported goods.


Little or nothing that you described in the afore transcribed message is a real possibility.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 14, 2012, 08:42:50 PM
Solar, why are you advocating greater complexity?
This proposal involves assessment of imports and exports.  Assessments of imports are mandatory.

Any exporter of U.S. goods that is reluctant to earning more money can choose not to pay the federal fees (which defray all direct annual federal expenses due to this proposal).  In such a case their goods are shipped from the USA without being assessed and no Import Certificates (based upon the value of that shipment would be issued.

Federal assessors look only upon individual shipments' invoices and those shipments can be subject to physical examination.  This has nothing to do with income tax, or account books.

Why are you concerned about the nature of goods being assessed?
There is a list of specific scarce or precious minerals; estimated values of such minerals integral to assessed goods are deducted from those goods assessed values.
Components, commodities, materials or finished goods are all assessed in the same manner.

All direct federal expenses are defrayed by U.S. goods exporters' voluntary payments of fees.  All of expenses are eventually and entirely paid by U.S. purchasers of imported goods.


Little or nothing that you described in the afore transcribed message is a real possibility.

Respectfully, Supposn

That in no way addressed what I said.
I'm going to guess English isn't your first language, and thats not meant to be insulting, you really didn't make a lot of sense.

Quote from: Solar on April 11, 2012, 07:38:35 AM
You are also advocating that Gov micromanage our economy.
Everything the Gov touches, it bogs down to a crawl through bureaucracy.
In other words, you are stifling innovation and dragging it through a swamp of red tape.

Heres a thought, how about we get Gov out of the way and get its hands off the private industry, including agriculture, and let the free mkt do what it does best, produce.

Solar, excerpted from reply #28:
Regarding comparative advantage, one of this proposal's characteristics is complete free and competitive enterprise.  Under an Import Certificate policy, individual enterprises would be of no less competitive advantage than what we now experience by seeking absolute free trade.  Because the policy will significantly decrease our trade deficit which increases our GDP and bolsters our median wage.  Our entire nation' economy is improved for all of us.

Solar, under an Import Certificate policy, U.S. commercial entities lose nothing.  USA's enterprises' heir disadvantages to lesser age or government supported foreign goods within or beyond U.S borders are reduced.  By limiting the adjusted assessed values of our imports to that of our exports, (i.e. by significantly reducing USA's trade deficit), we limit the extent of U.S. enterprises' disadvantages to foreign goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on April 14, 2012, 09:04:51 PM
That in no way addressed what I said.
I'm going to guess English isn't your first language, and thats not meant to be insulting, you really didn't make a lot of sense.

Solar, regarding my reply #37:
I believe I almost fully addressed what you wrote within your t#30 two paragraphs I transcribed.
I did not address your contention that the Import Certificate proposal is unconstitutional; that's a foolish assertion that I attributed to your enthusiasm.

I understand you wish to refute my messages but I don't know why you should consider it to be insulting?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: west2004 on April 14, 2012, 06:55:40 AM
.................................Also, if a drop in (X-M) were to lead to an increase in I that is greater than the decrease in (X-M) (as economic theory dictates that it will), would that not be beneficial to the economy and GDP?

Solar, x = exports, m = imports,  (x-m) = trade balance

USA has a negative trade balance, (i.e a trade deficit)_ because x < m.

I'm assuming it's a typographical effort when you wrote "Also, if a drop in (X-M) were to lead to an increase in I that is greater than the decrease in (X-M) (as economic theory dictates that it will), would that not be beneficial to the economy and GDP? ".

If you actually meant that, you're on my side and we have no disagreement.  I'm assuming otherwise, (i.e. it is a typographical error).
   
When USA economy is in receding, our domestic market sells less domestic and less imported goods.  That reduces our trade deficit because if USA purchases less foreign goods, we import less foreign goods.  (I.e. our poor economic performance causes USA to purchase less imports and reduces our trade deficit).
The cause is USA's poor economic performance; the effect is USA purchasing less imported goods.

Under an Import Certificate (an IC) policy it's conceivable to have a trade surplus of goods subject to the policy, but it's not possible to have an annual trade deficit of such goods.

The trade deficit has been reduced due to the trade policy; we do not completely stop buying imports even during an economic  down turn but during economic down turns, U.S. purchases of imports will continue as they are now are somewhat reduced.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 14, 2012, 09:58:36 PM
Solar, excerpted from reply #28:
Regarding comparative advantage, one of this proposal's characteristics is complete free and competitive enterprise.  Under an Import Certificate policy, individual enterprises would be of no less competitive advantage than what we now experience by seeking absolute free trade.  Because the policy will significantly decrease our trade deficit which increases our GDP and bolsters our median wage.  Our entire nation' economy is improved for all of us.

Solar, under an Import Certificate policy, U.S. commercial entities lose nothing.  USA's enterprises' heir disadvantages to lesser age or government supported foreign goods within or beyond U.S borders are reduced.  By limiting the adjusted assessed values of our imports to that of our exports, (i.e. by significantly reducing USA's trade deficit), we limit the extent of U.S. enterprises' disadvantages to foreign goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Screw the deficit!!!
Penalizing importers with a tax, you call "import certificates", its still a tax, a tax that will be passed on to the consumer.
You can lose the cute little moniker of import certificates, its a tax, pure and simple so call it what it is.
You cannot micromanage the economy and think it is somehow an improvement, all these steps you want to add to the process not only increase the cost of all products, but it will cost us in taxes as well because you want to grow a brand new bureaucracy.
This monster will add hours, ie: Labor, which is another increase in cost to the end product that is to be sold, because now the importer/exporter has to higher another worker just to deal with your new taxes, maybe even force them to build more office space, maybe even force them to move to a bigger location, adding even more cost to the end product.
Do you even have a clue as to how business works?
Business does its best to keep costs at a bare minimum to eek out a tiny profit margin, but your new regs would add in the least, 30% to the cost of the product.

You don't seem to realize that manufacturers here in the US depend on tiny parts from other countries to finish and sell their products here, and abroad.
So you micromanage the system to say that importers of unfinished products will get a reduction in tax.
Do you know what every importer would do? They would tell their overseas supplier, to leave a part off and let us attach it, so we can qualify it as unfinished.
Now you're wise to them, so you hire more Gov workers to watch over these importers, adding more to the cost.

Do you see what kind of mess you want to create?
Not all importers are the same, some import billions of dollars worth of products, some finished, some unfinished, maybe just import keys for keyboards, some import just a few thousand dollars a year worth of product.
Yet you want them to spend thousands of hours in labor to feed the government need for taxes?

Put yourself in the business owners position, and look at the added stress you are putting on the people, you are asking for a small importer with maybe two employees to add one more, that would most likely put him out of business, in turn killing competition and stalling product completion by other business that  depend on his imported parts.
You don't seem to realize their are always consequences to gov interference.

Lets quit playing games, you see importers as a drain on the economy and have no problem penalizing them.
But as a consequence, you are only hurting the poorest consumers in the nation.
Lose the mask, you want to be a dictator, because thats what it would take to implement your new taxes.

Where are you from? I know you're not a native to the U.S..

Reply #41 was not for me, but rather West.

One other point you have yet to address.
How will you adjust your tax when exporting countries retaliate with an import tax of their own against our products?
Action always comes with a reaction, thats human nature.
Let me assure you, other producing nations aren't as stupid as most libs that would swallow your socialist plot to punish importers, they will retaliate.

By golly, I just can't WAIT to pay twice what I used to for something, after Hussein, Lord of the TelePrompter™ gets done making it too expensive to buy foreign-made goods --- and we can't sell what WE make because they paid us back!

But fear not! After every worker in America receives CEO pay (and CEOs earn less than janitors), our economy will be ON TRACK! Yes, without any doubt, we will ALL be able to afford anything we make and sell only to ourselves --- in an economy regulated by morons who gave us the Volt and green policies which are crippling our productive capacity!

Yes, yes, good comrades! Heap upon me the indignity of shelling out paycheck extortion money to rat-faced criminal union trash, for only THOSE who are anointed in Big Greed and Mind-Boggling Sloth can appreciate the wonderfulness of the Obama financial scheme!

Say, HALLELUJAH!

And brace yourself for civil war if this utter pierce of shit is reelected.