Solar, your reply #42 is 515 words.  It jumps from one topic to another with no demarcation between differing topics and sub-topics. 

I've been dealing with your multiple subject replies but this 515 word reply abuses both of us.
Can you break that reply up to more digestible portions with less topics and sub topics within each individual portion?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quiller, your reply #43 brought to mind a concept that occurred to me as a child.

IF there a utopian economy should ever evolve, similar to wealthy people that work for their own pleasure or to further establish their families' wealth and power beyond their own lifetimes.
But it's within a lesser economy where people work but need not strive to simply exist, that an interesting phenomenon would occur.

Comparatively few people are qualified to be symphony conductors; but almost all those qualified, desperately want the job regardless of the salary.
A great many people are qualified to collect garbage.  If it were not necessary for them to strive for their existence, extremely few of those people would willingly accept job as garbage collectors.

Within the economy I describe as approaching Utopia, we would have to increase the relative social status or other compensation for garbage collectors in order to get our society's garbage collected.

Symphony conductors would be very poorly compensated and unless the government recruited from prison labor, garbage collectors would be extremely well compensated.  Garbage collectors and their families would enjoy frequent vacation time and they could afford to take round the world tours.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 16, 2012, 10:22:46 AM
Quiller, your reply #43 brought to mind a concept that occurred to me as a child.

IF there a utopian economy should ever evolve, similar to wealthy people that work for their own pleasure or to further establish their families' wealth and power beyond their own lifetimes.
But it's within a lesser economy where people work but need not strive to simply exist, that an interesting phenomenon would occur.

Comparatively few people are qualified to be symphony conductors; but almost all those qualified, desperately want the job regardless of the salary.
A great many people are qualified to collect garbage.  If it were not necessary for them to strive for their existence, extremely few of those people would willingly accept job as garbage collectors.

Within the economy I describe as approaching Utopia, we would have to increase the relative social status or other compensation for garbage collectors in order to get our society's garbage collected.

Symphony conductors would be very poorly compensated and unless the government recruited from prison labor, garbage collectors would be extremely well compensated.  Garbage collectors and their families would enjoy frequent vacation time and they could afford to take round the world tours.

Respectfully, Supposn

Pie in the sky socialist nonsense. Don't waste my time again.

Quote from: Supposn on April 16, 2012, 10:22:46 AM
Quiller, your reply #43 brought to mind a concept that occurred to me as a child.

IF there a utopian economy should ever evolve, similar to wealthy people that work for their own pleasure or to further establish their families' wealth and power beyond their own lifetimes.
But it's within a lesser economy where people work but need not strive to simply exist, that an interesting phenomenon would occur.

Comparatively few people are qualified to be symphony conductors; but almost all those qualified, desperately want the job regardless of the salary.
A great many people are qualified to collect garbage.  If it were not necessary for them to strive for their existence, extremely few of those people would willingly accept job as garbage collectors.

Within the economy I describe as approaching Utopia, we would have to increase the relative social status or other compensation for garbage collectors in order to get our society's garbage collected.

Symphony conductors would be very poorly compensated and unless the government recruited from prison labor, garbage collectors would be extremely well compensated.  Garbage collectors and their families would enjoy frequent vacation time and they could afford to take round the world tours.

Respectfully, Supposn

That was all one topic, you have a myopic view of your proposed program.
I merely broadened the the view to show you the consequences of an import tax.

What part of retaliation do you not understand? If you impose am import tax, the exporting nation would naturally respond in kind, in turn, killing trade altogether!

Now go back and read it again, it makes perfectly clear, that your actions have severe side effects, side effects that in no way would lower the debt, instead, would raise unemployment levels and keep them there.

Study your history, one econ class, does not make an economist!

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.

Solar, I'm a populist that believes every existing or proposed law or regulation should stand (or fall) upon its own merits.
I often encounter the label socialism and socialist.
I realize that just as there are knee jerks on the left, there are similar reactions from the right.
I'm not insulted when others have labeled me as a leftist or a right winger.  The labels others apply to me are generally dependent upon the predominant leanings of the group I'm posting to.  What I advocate or oppose are the same regardless of what groups I post to.

Within the proposed Import Certificate, (IC) policy:

Importers of goods are required to surrender ICs with face values covering the values of the goods they wish to import into the USA.
   
Exporters of U.S. goods would be ENTITLED to pay the federal fees to defray federal direct expenses due to this policy; they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

It is pure free competitive enterprise.  It is not pure free trade but it is market rather than government driven.

It grants government no policy determination; assessment of goods is a technical rather than a policy determination.  It is absolutely pure free
competitive enterprise.

The federal government is granted no right to favor or discriminate between foreign nations.

If importing and exporting are considered as a single global trade industry, and other than excluding the values of specific scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed, this proposal does not favor or discriminate between any industry or their products anywhere. 

This proposal is of some net advantage to any U.S. enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond U.S. borders.

To some extent this proposal is an indirect but effective subsidy of U.S. exported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 16, 2012, 01:04:58 PM
Solar, I'm a populist that believes every existing or proposed law or regulation should stand (or fall) upon its own merits.
I often encounter the label socialism and socialist.
I realize that just as there are knee jerks on the left, there are similar reactions from the right.
I'm not insulted when others have labeled me as a leftist or a right winger.  The labels others apply to me are generally dependent upon the predominant leanings of the group I'm posting to.  What I advocate or oppose are the same regardless of what groups I post to.

What you propose is Governments heavy hand in the free mkt, that is not by any means a Conservative ideal, maybe a RINO position, but definitely a Leftists position.
[/quote]

QuoteWithin the proposed Import Certificate, (IC) TAX policy:
Importers of goods are required to surrender TAXES with face values covering the values of the goods they wish to import into the USA.

Fixed it for you. Quit using cute names for taxes, its still a TAX!!!
   

QuoteExporters of U.S. goods would be ENTITLED to pay the federal fees to defray federal direct expenses due to this policy; they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

Made no sense at all...

Quote
It is pure free competitive enterprise.  It is not pure free trade but it is market rather than government driven.
It grants government no policy determination; assessment of goods is a technical rather than a policy determination.  It is absolutely pure free
competitive enterprise.

No it is not! The taxes go directly to the Government, the Gov will assess the value, therefore it is Gov controlled!

QuoteThe federal government is granted no right to favor or discriminate between foreign nations.

But Gov is interfering with free trade, which will have a reciprocal effect from disgruntled countries.
Why is it you can't see these actions come with consequences?

QuoteIf importing and exporting are considered as a single global trade industry, and other than excluding the values of specific scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed, this proposal does not favor or discriminate between any industry or their products anywhere.

How wonderful, so instead you want to punish all importers.

QuoteThis proposal is of some net advantage to any U.S. enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond U.S. borders.

Yet you assume their entire product will be made from all US parts.
Thats living in a Utopian world.

QuoteTo some extent this proposal is an indirect but effective subsidy of U.S. exported goods.

Which is discriminatory in nature, and thats exactly how our trading partners will view it, and reciprocate in kind.

You have yet to tell me what your country of origin is.
Nor have you explored my points about a trade war, one you would create with you new tax.
Tell me, how would you avoid sanctions on all US born products by other countries.

Quote from: Solar on April 15, 2012, 08:31:20 AM
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.

Solar, adopting an Import Certificate policy is only beneficial to a nation with chronic trade deficits.  USA is the nation with the greatest and most chronic annual trade deficits.

[USA's balance of trade (proportionate to USA's imports or exports) had hovered near zero for the decade prior to 1965 when it finally tipped to become a trade deficit.  USA has had increasingly greater annual trade deficits for the last 40 years.
If our trade policy isn't modified to reduce our trade deficits or our economy doesn't become extremely poorer, we can expect USA's trend of generally increasing trade deficits and that deficits' detrimental effects upon our annual AGDPs to continue growing].

Regardless of which nations' might or might not adopt similar trade policies or tariffs, this proposal would be a net benefit to the USA.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Those who aspire to import and those who import USA goods into many foreign nations are often less welcomed than importers and imports from other competing nations.

Rather than defending exporters of U.S. goods and their goods, our government too often acquiesces or surrenders.  Additionally U.S. producers interests our compromised by federal negotiators that have a non-economic agenda.

I particularly recall Louisiana rice growers being shafted because the Department of defense wanted to keep our Okinawa military bases.  This would not happen under an Import Certificate, (IC) policy because the policy grants no entity, (not even the federal government) any additional discretion within the issue of USA's global trade.  U.S. negotiators would have to find an accommodation (other than global trade) to sweeten the deal.

The Marshall plan wasn't enacted at the expense of any particular U.S. industries or U.S. wage earning families; the Marshall plan was funded by USA's aggregate federal budget.

The IC policy is eventually and entirely funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.  It would not cause a global trade war but if that's what it takes to defend USA's economy and our wage earning families,
We shouldn't betray our own best economic interests.
//////////////////////////////////////

Solar, among the differences between you and I is your willingness to accept lesser USA annual GDPs and median wages rather than defending U.S. enterprises that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods within and beyond USA's borders.

Upon tis issue it is Iwho desires to the extent feasible, we defend our global trade balance, GDP and median wage from goods imported from nations that are unable and/or unwilling to better compensate their own workers.   

You're willing to throw the best interests of both U.S. enterprises and their employees under the wheels of the bus.

We can still have cheap foreign goods. We now have the absolute cheapest foreign goods at the net expense to USA's salary and wage earning families.
 
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 16, 2012, 04:17:26 PM
Solar, adopting an Import Certificate policy is only beneficial to a nation with chronic trade deficits.  USA is the nation with the greatest and most chronic annual trade deficits.

[USA's balance of trade (proportionate to USA's imports or exports) had hovered near zero for the decade prior to 1965 when it finally tipped to become a trade deficit.  USA has had increasingly greater annual trade deficits for the last 40 years.
If our trade policy isn't modified to reduce our trade deficits or our economy doesn't become extremely poorer, we can expect USA's trend of generally increasing trade deficits and that deficits' detrimental effects upon our annual AGDPs to continue growing].

Regardless of which nations' might or might not adopt similar trade policies or tariffs, this proposal would be a net benefit to the USA.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Those who aspire to import and those who import USA goods into many foreign nations are often less welcomed than importers and imports from other competing nations.

Rather than defending exporters of U.S. goods and their goods, our government too often acquiesces or surrenders.  Additionally U.S. producers interests our compromised by federal negotiators that have a non-economic agenda.

I particularly recall Louisiana rice growers being shafted because the Department of defense wanted to keep our Okinawa military bases.  This would not happen under an Import Certificate, (IC) policy because the policy grants no entity, (not even the federal government) any additional discretion within the issue of USA's global trade.  U.S. negotiators would have to find an accommodation (other than global trade) to sweeten the deal.

The Marshall plan wasn't enacted at the expense of any particular U.S. industries or U.S. wage earning families; the Marshall plan was funded by USA's aggregate federal budget.

The IC policy is eventually and entirely funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.  It would not cause a global trade war but if that's what it takes to defend USA's economy and our wage earning families,
We shouldn't betray our own best economic interests.
//////////////////////////////////////

Solar, among the differences between you and I is your willingness to accept lesser USA annual GDPs and median wages rather than defending U.S. enterprises that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods within and beyond USA's borders.

Upon tis issue it is Iwho desires to the extent feasible, we defend our global trade balance, GDP and median wage from goods imported from nations that are unable and/or unwilling to better compensate their own workers.   

You're willing to throw the best interests of both U.S. enterprises and their employees under the wheels of the bus.

We can still have cheap foreign goods. We now have the absolute cheapest foreign goods at the net expense to USA's salary and wage earning families.
 
Respectfully, Supposn

When you can actually answer my questions without simple speculation, get back to me.
You still don't understand the consequences of your proposals.
Theres a reason its never been employed in this country, its a fools ideal, nothing less.

You can dance all around the real issues, but until you broaden your vision, you are battling a lost cause.
Any penalty you institute against free trade, is instituting interference of big government.

Like I said, you've danced all around the side effects of what interfering in free trade would bring, though I imagine for one reason, socialists never consider the consequences of their actions.


Let me leave you with a thought to ponder.
India gets upset that we are forced to import their goods, so they institute a ban on all American made products, china sides with them and does the same.
Suddenly thousands of unfinished products are sitting dead, because we can't get parts to finish them, new cars sit on the assembly line, workers laid off.
This scenario is repeated all around the nation. Now what, in all your wisdom, are you going to do?

Quote from: Supposn on April 16, 2012, 04:17:26 PM
Solar, adopting an Import Certificate policy is only beneficial to a nation with chronic trade deficits.  USA is the nation with the greatest and most chronic annual trade deficits.

[USA's balance of trade (proportionate to USA's imports or exports) had hovered near zero for the decade prior to 1965 when it finally tipped to become a trade deficit.  USA has had increasingly greater annual trade deficits for the last 40 years.
If our trade policy isn't modified to reduce our trade deficits or our economy doesn't become extremely poorer, we can expect USA's trend of generally increasing trade deficits and that deficits' detrimental effects upon our annual AGDPs to continue growing].

Regardless of which nations' might or might not adopt similar trade policies or tariffs, this proposal would be a net benefit to the USA.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Those who aspire to import and those who import USA goods into many foreign nations are often less welcomed than importers and imports from other competing nations.

Rather than defending exporters of U.S. goods and their goods, our government too often acquiesces or surrenders.  Additionally U.S. producers interests our compromised by federal negotiators that have a non-economic agenda.

I particularly recall Louisiana rice growers being shafted because the Department of defense wanted to keep our Okinawa military bases.  This would not happen under an Import Certificate, (IC) policy because the policy grants no entity, (not even the federal government) any additional discretion within the issue of USA's global trade.  U.S. negotiators would have to find an accommodation (other than global trade) to sweeten the deal.

The Marshall plan wasn't enacted at the expense of any particular U.S. industries or U.S. wage earning families; the Marshall plan was funded by USA's aggregate federal budget.

The IC policy is eventually and entirely funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.  It would not cause a global trade war but if that's what it takes to defend USA's economy and our wage earning families,
We shouldn't betray our own best economic interests.
//////////////////////////////////////

Solar, among the differences between you and I is your willingness to accept lesser USA annual GDPs and median wages rather than defending U.S. enterprises that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods within and beyond USA's borders.

Upon tis issue it is Iwho desires to the extent feasible, we defend our global trade balance, GDP and median wage from goods imported from nations that are unable and/or unwilling to better compensate their own workers.   

You're willing to throw the best interests of both U.S. enterprises and their employees under the wheels of the bus.

We can still have cheap foreign goods. We now have the absolute cheapest foreign goods at the net expense to USA's salary and wage earning families.
 
Respectfully, Supposn

GDP is not the be all end all of economic indicators.  Why institute a policy that is so stifling on business and growth just to increase some arbitrary number?  The goal should be the strongest, most stable-growth-oriented economy possible.  It is similar in nature to buying a home for the purpose of lowering your tax bill.  The cost of the plan is far greater than the savings it brings about.  Similarly, the drop in production due to less investment, will more than outweigh the GDP increase from lower imports.  And it will surely harm the economy.  So, even if the GDP rises (which it likely won't), it will be a GDP rise accompanied by a slowed, less healthy economy.

The other goal of this strategy will not be achieved.  "Wage earning families" will not benefit from this, and in fact, will be hurt the most.  They will see their expenses rise, and since, as with all government created cost of living increases, their wages will not rise until well after their costs rise, and will not rise nearly as quickly, if at all.  This has the impact of destroying real incomes (buying power) and impoverishing those you wish to protect.

Quote by Suppossn:
Exporters of U.S. goods would be ENTITLED to pay the federal fees to defray federal direct expenses due to this policy; they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

Quote from: Solar on April 16, 2012, 01:36:43 PM
Made no sense at all..................................

Solar, you didn't read the first message of this thread or any of the referred sites?
You claim to be a conservative but do not recognize an enterprise choosing to purchase something in a reasonable expectation of earning a profit within a free enterprise, transparent and level market?

As I've written before. Upon this issue of our nation's global trade policy, your position is very far to the left of mine.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 16, 2012, 05:19:44 PM
Quote by Suppossn:
Exporters of U.S. goods would be ENTITLED to pay the federal fees to defray federal direct expenses due to this policy; they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

Oh jezus...
Then why even have the plan, if its completely voluntary?

QuoteSolar, you didn't read the first message of this thread or any of the referred sites?
You claim to be a conservative but do not recognize an enterprise choosing to purchase something in a reasonable expectation of earning a profit within a free enterprise, transparent and level market?As I've written before. Upon this issue of our nation's global trade policy, your position is very far to the left of mine.

Wrong, my little socialist friend, you want to interfere with trade, pure and simple!

It was two libs that wrote the proposal that wanted this to become law, the Dims had all three houses and still didn't institute this plan, even for them it was a no win situation.

Quote from: west2004 on April 16, 2012, 04:50:57 PM
GDP is not the be all end all of economic indicators.  Why institute a policy that is so stifling on business and growth just to increase some arbitrary number?  The goal should be the strongest, most stable-growth-oriented economy possible.  It is similar in nature to buying a home for the purpose of lowering your tax bill.  The cost of the plan is far greater than the savings it brings about.  Similarly, the drop in production due to less investment, will more than outweigh the GDP increase from lower imports.  And it will surely harm the economy.  So, even if the GDP rises (which it likely won't), it will be a GDP rise accompanied by a slowed, less healthy economy.

The other goal of this strategy will not be achieved.  "Wage earning families" will not benefit from this, and in fact, will be hurt the most.  They will see their expenses rise, and since, as with all government created cost of living increases, their wages will not rise until well after their costs rise, and will not rise nearly as quickly, if at all.  This has the impact of destroying real incomes (buying power) and impoverishing those you wish to protect.

Its akin to the carbon tax, another failed leftist plan.
Take Husseins plan to raise the price of fuel, trying to create a mkt for his Volt.
Look how well that worked out, all we are left with is higher energy costs.

This isn't going well...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 16, 2012, 06:49:00 PM
This isn't going well...

Which is also why the Dims ran from it as well.

Quote from: Solar on April 15, 2012, 08:31:20 AM
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.

Solar, I'm unable to put backbones into our U.S. president, senators and congressional representatives.   If I were able to do so, we USA would have enacted the Import Certificate proposal many years ago.  Within an IC policy, bilateral trade agreement would be extremely rare,  The market rather than government negotiators would determine USA's global trade's traffic but the IC policy would make it impossible for USA's assessed imports could never exceed our nation's assessed exported goods.

I would prefer that congress pass regulations enabling the  USA to retaliate against any nation that favors any foreign nations other than their own nation's representatives or products, to the disadvantage of USA representatives or products.
The congressional act should enable the federal government to retaliate quickly (IF NECESSARY).

But if the IC regulations were enacted, it would be unlikely that federal global trade retaliation would ever be necessary because nations trying to do trade harm to the USA while it was functioning under an IC policy would likely do significantly more harm to themselves while harm to the USA would be very limited.

Any goods imported into the USA require ICs that can only be used once.  If any nations are reluctant to permit USA goods to enter their nation, they to some extent reduce the amounts of ICs that the federal government issues to exporters of U. S. goods (who are willing to pay the federal fees that defray all direct federal expenses due to the IC policy).  This in turn increases the global open market value they deny themselves of those reduced priced U.S. products.

Respectfully Supposn