Conservative Political Forum

Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage.

It is not our global trade but our trade deficits' that are a significant net detriment to our economy.  Trade deficits' are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs.

I'm a proponent of a market driven proposal to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit of goods.  It does not favor or discriminate between foreign nations, or between manufactured, agricultural or any other industries' products. It is self funding; eventually all expenses are borne by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.

The basic concept is for exporters who choose to pay the federal fees to acquire TRANSFERABLE IMPORT CERTIFICATES, (ICs) for the assessed value of their goods leaving the USA.  The fees defray all direct federal expenses due to this proposed policy.

Importers would be required to surrender ICs for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered certificates are cancelled.
These transferable Import Certificates may seem as a boon to exporters of USA goods but it's actually an indirect and effective export subsidy.

The version of this policy I advocate is completely market driven, funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign good and excludes values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed.

This trade policy would significantly decrease USA's trade deficit of goods and increase the aggregate sum of USA's imports plus exports and our GDP more than otherwise.  GDP bolsters the median wage.

Wage earning families benefit from cheaper imported goods but every day of every year they're dependent upon their U.S. wages.  Regardless of how small the additions to imports' prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA's total assessed imports could never exceed that of our exports.  USA consumers will be able to purchase cheap, (but not the absolute cheapest) imported goods.  We cannot afford the absolute cheapest.
 
Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".

Respectfully, Supposn

Welcome to the forum Supposn.
If I follow you correctly here, what you're advocating for, is a tax on imports that would be paid by the consumer.
I agree, it would bolster American made products, but it would also hurt the working man, in that most are barely making it at the moment.

Though, I must admit, I like it better than a trade war.

By the way, Buffet's a fuckin socialist, he lives by the lib rule of, Do as I say, not as I do.
The more I thought about this, the more it sounded like just another lib ploy to do a back door tax on business, and when I saw you quoted Buffet, I knew it was.

This seems to basically be a form of tariff, and if so, is a terrible idea.

Trade deficits are somewhat meaningless, because all they measure is dollars out vs dollars in, and dollars are just another commodity, and one that is rapidly losing its value.

The fact is that trade, whether within our borders or outside, is an exchange of wealth.  this exchange only occurs when one is getting something they value more than what they are giving.  This means that any trade (whether it is dollars for steel, cows for gold, oil for yuan, etc) there is a positive sum of wealth gained.

Even if such a plan does raise wages for Americans, it will not raise their purchasing power, as the goods they buy will go up in price, thus leaving their purchasing power the same.  Those folks will enjoy their higher wages until they get to the grocery store or gas pump and have to pay far more for goods.

Quote from: west2004 on April 08, 2012, 05:38:39 PM
This seems to basically be a form of tariff, and if so, is a terrible idea.

Trade deficits are somewhat meaningless, because all they measure is dollars out vs dollars in, and dollars are just another commodity, and one that is rapidly losing its value.

The fact is that trade, whether within our borders or outside, is an exchange of wealth.  this exchange only occurs when one is getting something they value more than what they are giving.  This means that any trade (whether it is dollars for steel, cows for gold, oil for yuan, etc) there is a positive sum of wealth gained.

Even if such a plan does raise wages for Americans, it will not raise their purchasing power, as the goods they buy will go up in price, thus leaving their purchasing power the same.  Those folks will enjoy their higher wages until they get to the grocery store or gas pump and have to pay far more for goods.

Well said and I agree, its nothing but another tax, regardless of how they want to disguise it.
Like all fees/tariffs/duties/ they're all penalties/taxes, the consumer always ends up paying the bill.

Quote from: west2004 on April 08, 2012, 05:38:39 PM
This seems to basically be a form of tariff, and if so, is a terrible idea.

Trade deficits are somewhat meaningless, because all they measure is dollars out vs dollars in, and dollars are just another commodity, and one that is rapidly losing its value.

The fact is that trade, whether within our borders or outside, is an exchange of wealth.  this exchange only occurs when one is getting something they value more than what they are giving.  This means that any trade (whether it is dollars for steel, cows for gold, oil for yuan, etc) there is a positive sum of wealth gained.

Even if such a plan does raise wages for Americans, it will not raise their purchasing power, as the goods they buy will go up in price, thus leaving their purchasing power the same.  Those folks will enjoy their higher wages until they get to the grocery store or gas pump and have to pay far more for goods.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

God, I love it when someone actually gets it!

It like opening all the windows on a warm spring morning in a house which has been closed up all winter long!

-Dr Watt

Much of our Trade Deficit is in reality the money we send overseas to purchase oil. Right now it is about half of our deficit. If Obozo allowed us to exploit our own oil resources, we would lower our deficit by ending imports and perhaps end it by becoming an oil exporter. Amazing how often, when you check back to the root of so many of our problems, you find Obamao's policies!

Quote from: west2004 on April 08, 2012, 05:38:39 PM
................Trade deficits are somewhat meaningless, because all they measure is dollars out vs dollars in, and dollars are just another commodity, and one that is rapidly losing its value................Even if such a plan does raise wages for Americans, it will not raise their purchasing power, as the goods they buy will go up in price, thus leaving their purchasing power the same.  Those folks will enjoy their higher wages until they get to the grocery store or gas pump and have to pay far more for goods.

West2004, trade deficits are nations' imports of goods and service products exceeding the values of their exports.  A trade deficit indicates the nation produced less than otherwise; (otherwise being if there had been no trade deficit).  Dollars are the chips that indicate who won or lost; at stake are jobs, the extent they're better paying jobs, and those lost jobs affect upon the median wage.

Trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to nations' GDPs.  The benefits of production are earned entirely by the producing nations.
All expenses due to this proposal would be funded by the increased prices of foreign goods sold to U.S. purchasers.  That would be the entire increase of prices due to this proposal.

Wage earning families benefit from cheaper imports but they depend upon their U.S. wages every day of every year.   Cheaper imports do not compensate them for trade deficit's detriment to the GDP and median wage.  Within an Import Certificate policy there will be available cheap, but not the absolute cheapest priced imports.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: mdgiles on April 09, 2012, 02:48:25 PM
Much of our Trade Deficit is in reality the money we send overseas to purchase oil. Right now it is about half of our deficit. If Obozo allowed us to exploit our own oil resources, we would lower our deficit by ending imports and perhaps end it by becoming an oil exporter. Amazing how often, when you check back to the root of so many of our problems, you find Obamao's policies!

MD Giles you missed this part of my message?
"The version of this policy I advocate is completely market driven, funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign good and excludes values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed".

Otherwise entrepreneurs would be exporting gem encrusted cast gold paper weights to acquire transferable Import Certificates in order to import more labor or technologically intensive goods.  Additionally there are risks to not excluding scarce minerals from the assessed values of goods.
These exclusions are "deal busters".

Our petroleum problem is a separate issue that requires its own solution.  Excluding the values of scarce or precious minerals, the remainder is half or more of USA's trade deficit of goods.  That's what this proposal would eliminate.

Due to its behavior as an export subsidy, it would increase the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports, the GDP and the median wage more than otherwise; otherwise being not enacting this proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
West2004, trade deficits are nations' imports of goods and service products exceeding the values of their exports.  A trade deficit indicates the nation produced less than otherwise; (otherwise being if there had been no trade deficit).  Dollars are the chips that indicate who won or lost; at stake are jobs, the extent they're better paying jobs, and those lost jobs affect upon the median wage.

A trade deficit in products is not a trade deficit in wealth.  In every trade, wealth is created as an individual trading is getting something more valuable than they give up.  A growth in wealth is what grows purchasing power of individuals and businesses.  Individuals who buy imported products do so because it gives them a better return on trade, and thus allows them or their business to grow their wealth and be more efficient.  More efficiency leads to greater returns for businesses.  Greater returns lead to greater investment in businesses.  Greater investment means increased hiring (it might be hiring in different areas, as the market will be directing capital to the areas that are most efficient).

QuoteTrade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to nations' GDPs.  The benefits of production are earned entirely by the producing nations.
All expenses due to this proposal would be funded by the increased prices of foreign goods sold to U.S. purchasers.  That would be the entire increase of prices due to this proposal.

Trade deficits and surpluses have little bearing on GDP.  Regardless of where items are purchased from, the most efficient application of capital and spending is what creates and grows the most wealth.  Growing wealth increases investment, and leads to more capital being spent and greater business growth and therefore greater GDP.

An increase in prices on imports would have an inflationary effect, as the things everybody and every company buys.  This price growth would negate any growth in nominal wages, as purchasing power of every dollar is now lower. IT would stifle growth and force inefficient application of capital and spending.

QuoteWage earning families benefit from cheaper imports but they depend upon their U.S. wages every day of every year.   Cheaper imports do not compensate them for trade deficit's detriment to the GDP and median wage.  Within an Import Certificate policy there will be available cheap, but not the absolute cheapest priced imports.

This assumes that greater imports of goods is making American's less employed/employable.  More efficient use of capital in purchases allows greater investment return and in turn wealth growth and therefore more investment in production and employment of all kinds (because there is more wealth to invest).  So employment grows, and does so without the inflationary effect of a tariff.  In terms of real wages and real wealth, the nation and all individuals are better off.

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 02:43:24 AM
MD Giles you missed this part of my message?
"The version of this policy I advocate is completely market driven, funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign good and excludes values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed".

Otherwise entrepreneurs would be exporting gem encrusted cast gold paper weights to acquire transferable Import Certificates in order to import more labor or technologically intensive goods.  Additionally there are risks to not excluding scarce minerals from the assessed values of goods.
These exclusions are "deal busters".

Our petroleum problem is a separate issue that requires its own solution.  Excluding the values of scarce or precious minerals, the remainder is half or more of USA's trade deficit of goods.  That's what this proposal would eliminate.

Due to its behavior as an export subsidy, it would increase the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports, the GDP and the median wage more than otherwise; otherwise being not enacting this proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

Basically what you are proposing is a carbon trading scam on imports.
Theres a reason it failed in the energy mkt and why it would fail as a deficit reduction scheme, its a tax born out of nothing.

You want to tax the producers and have them absorb the costs to pass along to the consumer.
How about instead of using the power of gov interference, we get it the Hell out of the way and let the free mkt decide the winners and losers.

Painting the deck chairs and raising their usage fees is not going to raise their value, nor will it increase their use.
What it will do, is eliminate a large portion of the mkt from lounging in them.

What you're proposing is a trickle up method, which has been proven to kill mkts.

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 02:43:24 AM
MD Giles you missed this part of my message?
"The version of this policy I advocate is completely market driven, funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign good and excludes values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed".

Otherwise entrepreneurs would be exporting gem encrusted cast gold paper weights to acquire transferable Import Certificates in order to import more labor or technologically intensive goods.  Additionally there are risks to not excluding scarce minerals from the assessed values of goods.
These exclusions are "deal busters".

Our petroleum problem is a separate issue that requires its own solution.  Excluding the values of scarce or precious minerals, the remainder is half or more of USA's trade deficit of goods.  That's what this proposal would eliminate.

Due to its behavior as an export subsidy, it would increase the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports, the GDP and the median wage more than otherwise; otherwise being not enacting this proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

Actually I did. I took your post as a straight forward call for reducing our trade deficit. A rereading reveals that it's mostly a call for a tariff system of a sort, as a means of passing the costs of federal intervention on to the consumers.

Quote from: mdgiles on April 10, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
Actually I did. I took your post as a straight forward call for reducing our trade deficit. A rereading reveals that it's mostly a call for a tariff system of a sort, as a means of passing the costs of federal intervention on to the consumers.

Yep, a tax, is a tax, is a tax, no matter how you disguise it.

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 04:38:08 AM
A trade deficit in products is not a trade deficit in wealth.  In every trade, wealth is created as an individual trading is getting something more valuable than they give up.  A growth in wealth is what grows purchasing power of individuals and businesses..................................

Wesdt2004, the expenditure formula is the simplest and most generally uses formula for calculating what's commonly defined as the gross domestic product, (GDP).  ALL commonly accepted formulas throughout statisticians' and economists' communities throughout the world arrive at similar GDP amounts.

Within ALL of those formulas trade surpluses positively contribute and trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations' GDPs.
This is not an opinion but a fact integral to the GDP and the calculating formulas that define the GDP.

"Investments" contribute but "transfers of wealth" do not contribute to GDPs.  Investments are the consumption or use of goods or service products on behalf of an enterprise to hopefully realize additionally valued goods and services. 

Foreign entrepreneurs in aggregate spent less than their sales revenues derived from their sales to USA customers, for the purchase of U.S. products.  That's our nation's global trade deficit.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 11:45:45 AM
Wesdt2004, the expenditure formula is the simplest and most generally uses formula for calculating what's commonly defined as the gross domestic product, (GDP).  ALL commonly accepted formulas throughout statisticians' and economists' communities throughout the world arrive at similar GDP amounts.

Within ALL of those formulas trade surpluses positively contribute and trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations' GDPs.
This is not an opinion but a fact integral to the GDP and the calculating formulas that define the GDP.

OK, but why apply tariffs in order to lower the trade deficit and lower its impact on GDP to get them to some nominally important point, at the expense of economic growth and expansion?  The ends do not justify the means, and the stated means are nowhere near the most efficient means to the desired end.

QuoteSome baptist hospital center in Texas switched it around and started paying doctors flat fees for full health outcomes, and paid bonuses ONLY IF they practiced the standard of care as defined by the hospital in each case.

But those transfers of wealth, through their efficiency, grow/create wealth.  This new wealth becomes investment and economic expansion.  One must not look at everything as a simple transaction that occurs and then is done and measured.  One must observe the ongoing effects of a transaction, as well as the effects that meddling in those transactions will cause time passes and over a countless number of transactions.

QuoteForeign entrepreneurs in aggregate spent less than their sales revenues derived from their sales to USA customers, for the purchase of U.S. products.  That's our nation's global trade deficit.

OK, explain what makes that inherently good or bad for either side.

Quote from: mdgiles on April 10, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
Actually I did. I took your post as a straight forward call for reducing our trade deficit. A rereading reveals that it's mostly a call for a tariff system of a sort, as a means of passing the costs of federal intervention on to the consumers.

MD Giles, all of the proposal's expenses are at the expense of U.S. purchasers only to the extent that they purchase foreign goods.

Wage earning families benefit from cheaper imported goods but every day of every year they're dependent upon their U.S. wages.  Regardless of how small the additions to imports' prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA's assessed imports could never exceed that of our exports.  USA consumers will be able to purchase cheap, (but not the absolute cheapest) imported goods.  We cannot afford the absolute cheapest.
 
Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 04:38:08 AM
..........................Trade deficits and surpluses have little bearing on GDP.  Regardless of where items are purchased from, the most efficient application of capital and spending is what creates and grows the most wealth.  Growing wealth increases investment, and leads to more capital being spent and greater business growth and therefore greater GDP.........
.................This assumes that greater imports of goods is making American's less employed/employable.  More efficient use of capital in purchases allows greater investment return and in turn wealth growth and therefore more investment in production and employment of all kinds (because there is more wealth to invest).  So employment grows, and does so without the inflationary effect of a tariff.  In terms of real wages and real wealth, the nation and all individuals are better off.

West2004, we assume every entrepreneur or enterprise choosing to enter into a trade agreement perceived some comparative advantage to themselves: in aggregate they are correct.

It is also true that generally what our nation's enterprises perceive to be in their best interests are also generally in our economies better interest.  But there are often issues where enterprises general perceptions are wrong and/or where the best interests of the business communities and the remaining segments of our society diverge.

Trade surpluses contribute to nations' GDPs; trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations' GDPs.
A domestic product upon its producer's shipping platform or a similar imported product unloaded onto a dock within the nation, are of equal future benefit to the nation.  Prior to that, all benefits due from production are earned by the producing nation.

All supporting and direct goods and service products, (particularly labor) that contributed to the creation of the finished product contributed the GDPs of the producing nations.

Underemployment is socially and economically detrimental to a nation.  (Unemployment is only the extreme case of underemployment).  Enterprises can rent their labor for their needful periods.  Governments, particularly governments of democratic nations cannot endure if they attempt to store the nation's underemployed labor similar to shelved stock-in-trade.
USA consumers will be able to purchase cheap, (but not the absolute cheapest) imported goods.  We cannot afford the absolute cheapest.

Annual trade deficits are not to the nation's comparative advantage.
Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
MD Giles, all of the proposal's expenses are at the expense of U.S. purchasers only to the extent that they purchase foreign goods.

Wage earning families benefit from cheaper imported goods but every day of every year they're dependent upon their U.S. wages.  Regardless of how small the additions to imports' prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA's assessed imports could never exceed that of our exports.  USA consumers will be able to purchase cheap, (but not the absolute cheapest) imported goods.  We cannot afford the absolute cheapest.
 
Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".

Respectfully, Supposn

And a tariff by any other name is what exactly? What you're suggesting is autarky; a policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports. That might have worked before the era of international trade; but economic isolationism, is going to work very well these days. Not to mention that if other countries follow suit, how exactly is that supposed to help our economy? And of course their are firms whose business is strictly importing, just as their are firms that are strictly exporters; so how will that work - besides adding another layer of government bureaucracy. 

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
But there are often issues where enterprises general perceptions are wrong and/or where the best interests of the business communities and the remaining segments of our society diverge.

Trade surpluses contribute to nations' GDPs; trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations' GDPs.

GDP is nothing more than one measure, out of almost countless measures, of certain aspects of our economy.  It is not the be all end all single factor in determining health and quality of an economy.

QuoteA domestic product upon its producer's shipping platform or a similar imported product unloaded onto a dock within the nation, are of equal future benefit to the nation.  Prior to that, all benefits due from production are earned by the producing nation.

In the sense that you are describing, nations are not buying, selling, producing, or consuming these products.  Individuals are.  Individuals best serve their interests and those of the economy by applying their capital (whether it is labor, money, iron, etc) as efficiently as possible.

Since it is easy, let's use dollars as a measure of capital expenditure.  Say a business has budgeted 50,000 dollars for the purchase of paper to produce a publication, and the option is to import the paper at a cost of $5 per copy of their book, or produce it themselves, locally, at a cost of $10 per copy of the book.  Books of that type are selling at a price of $15 dollars, and for simplicity, the paper is the only cost.  With the $5 paper, they can produce 10,000 copies, with a margin of $10 per copy.  With the $10 paper, they can produce 5000 copies with a margin of $5 per copy.  That is a differences in return of $25,000 vs. $100,000.  That money can now be reinvested in more production.

This is an extreme and simplistic example, but I set it up to illustrate the aspect that you are missing, and that is the economic benefit gained by efficient allocation of invested capital.

Tariffs, by nature, lessen that efficiency and in turn lessen growth.

QuoteAll supporting and direct goods and service products, (particularly labor) that contributed to the creation of the finished product contributed the GDPs of the producing nations.

In my example, the capital that would have been applied to these tasks (less efficiently), can now be applied elsewhere in the economy.

QuoteUnderemployment is socially and economically detrimental to a nation.  (Unemployment is only the extreme case of underemployment).  Enterprises can rent their labor for their needful periods.  Governments, particularly governments of democratic nations cannot endure if they attempt to store the nation's underemployed labor similar to shelved stock-in-trade.

Unemployment and underemployment are brought on by growth stifling government intervention and and government created business cycles.

A tariff would exacerbate the problem, while bringing down real wages of those who are able to remain employed.

QuoteWe cannot afford the absolute cheapest.

If maximum growth and economic expansion are the goal, we cannot afford anything but the most efficient application of capital.

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
MD Giles, all of the proposal's expenses are at the expense of U.S. purchasers only to the extent that they purchase foreign goods.

Wage earning families benefit from cheaper imported goods but every day of every year they're dependent upon their U.S. wages.  Regardless of how small the additions to imports' prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA's assessed imports could never exceed that of our exports.  USA consumers will be able to purchase cheap, (but not the absolute cheapest) imported goods.  We cannot afford the absolute cheapest.
 
Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".

Respectfully, Supposn

Do you have a clue as to what percentage of goods are imported?
Even car manufacturers import much of the finished product.
Are you actually saying we need another branch of the Gov to monitor what parts need your tax placed upon them, do you have any idea what your end plan would cost, considering all the gov employees that would need to be hired?

In order to balance the budget in your ten year time span through taxation, it would cost the end consumer trillions yearly, fuel alone would double in price.

Dorgan and Feingold both said: (Both huge libs by the way)
"For oil, the phase-in period would be 10 years, to give the economy time to find and develop alternative energy supplies, the senators said."

Hussein tried the alternative BS and it was a complete failure.
The end result of this plan would bankrupt the average consumer, and only make the rich richer, trading and selling import certificates.

I appreciate your passion for reducing the debt, but the only way to actually reduce it is to quit spending like a drunken sailor and live within our means.

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 12:02:04 PM
OK, but why apply tariffs in order to lower the trade deficit and lower its impact on GDP to get them to some nominally important point, at the expense of economic growth and expansion?  The ends do not justify the means, and the stated means are nowhere near the most efficient means to the desired end.

But those transfers of wealth, through their efficiency, grow/create wealth.  This new wealth becomes investment and economic expansion.  One must not look at everything as a simple transaction that occurs and then is done and measured.  One must observe the ongoing effects of a transaction, as well as the effects that meddling in those transactions will cause time passes and over a countless number of transactions..................

West2004, trade surpluses contribute to nations' GDPs; trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations' GDPs.
A domestic product upon its producer's shipping platform or a similar imported product unloaded onto a dock within the nation, are of equal future benefit to the nation.  Prior to that, all benefits due from production are earned by the producing nation.

The benefits of production are entirely earned by the net producing, not the importing nations.  A trade deficit is of no comparative advantage to the nation.  What portion of reply #13 are you refuting and specifically upon what basis?

Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: mdgiles on April 10, 2012, 12:45:19 PM
And a tariff by any other name is what exactly? What you're suggesting is autarky; a policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports. That might have worked before the era of international trade; but economic isolationism, is going to work very well these days. Not to mention that if other countries follow suit, how exactly is that supposed to help our economy? And of course their are firms whose business is strictly importing, just as their are firms that are strictly exporters; so how will that work - besides adding another layer of government bureaucracy.

Okay. Make that "isn't going to work very well..." and "there are firms whose..".

We've had over a half century of the Government meddling in the supposedly Free Market to an ever increasing extent - how is that working out, economically speaking?

Government is not the solution, Government is the problem!

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 05:56:16 PM
West2004, trade surpluses contribute to nations' GDPs; trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations' GDPs.
A domestic product upon its producer's shipping platform or a similar imported product unloaded onto a dock within the nation, are of equal future benefit to the nation.  Prior to that, all benefits due from production are earned by the producing nation.

The benefits of production are entirely earned by the net producing, not the importing nations.  A trade deficit is of no comparative advantage to the nation.  What portion of reply #13 are you refuting and specifically upon what basis?

Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".
Respectfully, Supposn

I am refuting your entire platform that trade deficits or surpluses have any impact on GDP.  GDP is a measure of production, not consumption.  If a nation produces 15 trillion dollars worth of goods and services, their GDP is 15 trillion, regardless of whether it consumes 20 trillion or 10 trillion.  I am also refuting the importance you place on GDP in measuring the health and strength of the economy.

I am also refuting your proposed action to "correct" the trade deficit.  It will stifle growth.  It will make investment less efficient, thus leading to less return, less growth, less investment, etc.  It will decrease purchasing power and real wages of American's.

Reply 13 is rather incoherent and not relevant.  Can you restate it more clearly?

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 07:20:09 PM
I am refuting your entire platform that trade deficits or surpluses have any impact on GDP.  GDP is a measure of production, not consumption.  If a nation produces 15 trillion dollars worth of goods and services, their GDP is 15 trillion, regardless of whether it consumes 20 trillion or 10 trillion.  I am also refuting the importance you place on GDP in measuring the health and strength of the economy.

I am also refuting your proposed action to "correct" the trade deficit.  It will stifle growth.  It will make investment less efficient, thus leading to less return, less growth, less investment, etc.  It will decrease purchasing power and real wages of American's.

quote author=west2004
Reply 13 is rather incoherent and not relevant.  Can you restate it more clearly?/quote]

West2004, nation's balance of trade is explicitly integral to the most common formula, (i.e. the expenditure formula) for calculating GDPs.  Balance of trade is indirectly or directly integral to ALL conventional GDP calculating formulas. Those domestic jobs, knowledge and experience that directly or indirectly enabled the nation's production all contributed to their nation's GDP.  These are the benefits earned by producing nations and denied at least to the extent that a nation is a net importer.

National balance of trade is of no concern to enterprises that can simply reduce their excess labor force if they determine importing rather than producing is to their comparative advantage.
What's to individual or aggregate enterprises advantage may diverge from the remainder of the nation that are not principle parties of trade agreements. 

Government can recognize and prohibit practices that are contrary to publics' interests.  Trade deficits are not to their nations' comparative advantages; they contribute absolutely nothing to their nation's GDP.

[There's precedents for this.  We have zoning and building regulations that protect those not directly party to determination of construction, use or location of a building].

Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".
Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn, is there a reason you are avoiding answering my questions?

A number of years ago I came across an Information Please listing U.S. annual imports and export amounts for categories of goods.  I began considering their individual balances of trade and found some surprises.

I excluded what all tsaxpayers' are supporting; U.S. price supported crops. (We pay for increased domestic prices and additionally subsidize those crops exports.  I learned at that time U.S. agriculture was not the shining example of a trade surplus that's contrary to manufacturing's trade deficit.  I'm a proponent of a policy that does not treat agricultural products differently.

I would hope that since this proposal also behaves as an export subsidy, the Department of Agriculture would see fit to reduce their export subsidy to the extent that there's no need to further increase our subsidy of price supported crop exports.  This would be a reduction of federal spending.  The proposal's subsidy is funded from U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.

After I excluded our currently price supported agricultural goods, all petroleum products, and all products that are essentially scarce or precious minerals, we were then running a half trillion dollar annual trade deficit of all remaining goods.

I've often read that net trade balance's affect upon the GDP is anywhere from double to triple the nation's net trade balance.  I personally suspect they're including the affect of the goods upon the GDP AFTER the goods have reached domestic producers' shipping platform or imported goods have been unloaded upon the dock in the nation's port of entry.
Beyond those points in time, similar domestic and imported goods are of equal benefit to the nation.  It's nonsense to discuss differences beyond those points in time.

All of this proposal's expenses are borne by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.  Almost trade deficit's entire economic detriment to the GDP and median wage are borne by U.S. wage and salary earning families who are completely or almost completely dependent upon their U.S. incomes.  The remaining detriment is to the federal debt we're passing on to our future generations.

Annually increasing our GDP by a minimum of a half trillion dollars each year with no net government expense is sufficient reason to adopt this trade proposal.

This is a market (rather than a government) driven policy.  Government is granted no policy discretion.  Assessment of goods is a technical rather than a policy determination.  Because it behaves as an export subsidy, it will increase the sum of USA's aggregate imports plus exports.

Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on April 10, 2012, 02:10:00 PM
Do you have a clue as to what percentage of goods are imported?
Even car manufacturers import much of the finished product.
Are you actually saying we need another branch of the Gov to monitor what parts need your tax placed upon them, do you have any idea what your end plan would cost, considering all the gov employees that would need to be hired?

In order to balance the budget in your ten year time span through taxation, it would cost the end consumer trillions yearly, fuel alone would double in price.

Dorgan and Feingold both said: (Both huge libs by the way)
"For oil, the phase-in period would be 10 years, to give the economy time to find and develop alternative energy supplies, the senators said."

Hussein tried the alternative BS and it was a complete failure.
The end result of this plan would bankrupt the average consumer, and only make the rich richer, trading and selling import certificates.

I appreciate your passion for reducing the debt, but the only way to actually reduce it is to quit spending like a drunken sailor and live within our means.

Solar, USA manufacturers will have to get on the internet, or call their broker to purchase Import Certificates, (ICs) with face values sufficient to cover the adjusted assessed values of whatever components or materials they want to import into the USA.
There will be a list of scarce or precious materials whose values are excluded from the assessed valuation of goods.  Exporters of U.S. goods can choose to have their goods assessed if they agree to pay the fees that defray all direct federal expenses due to this proposal.  They'll receive their ICs as soon as their goods leave the USA.

U.S Customs would be the logical organization to perform the assessment of goods.  They are currently responsible for being aware of everything entering the USA but they are failing to do so.  Now they'll have an additional inducement and revenue to do their job.  There will also be lobbyists representing U.S. producers to push for full and proper compliance.
[If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, any U.S. enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA's borders would benefit from this trade proposal].

Exporters' entitlements to pay the fees and acquire ICs are an indirect but effective subsidy of U.S. exports. I would expect that this proposal would increase our sum of aggregate imports plus exports.  That would increase the need for more U.S customs officers which eventually are all funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.

The version of an Import Certificate policy I advocate would have an explicit list scarce or precious minerals.  If those minerals are integral to a product being assessed, the values of those minerals are excluded from the product's assessed value.  I expect petroleum to be one of those rare or scarce minerals on that list.  Your comment regarding ten years and fuel is inapplicable.

What's this comment about debt?  The federal debt?  This proposal will reduce the trade deficit which has a direct affect upon GDP which has some affect upon the federal budget and the federal debt.

Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 01:56:59 PM
..........................In the sense that you are describing, nations are not buying, selling, producing, or consuming these products.  Individuals are.  Individuals best serve their interests and those of the economy by applying their capital (whether it is labor, money, iron, etc) as efficiently as possible.

Since it is easy, let's use dollars as a measure of capital expenditure.  Say a business has budgeted 50,000.............................

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 (http://www.usa-trade-deficit.blogspot.com)
or Google: "wikipedia, import certificates ".
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 08:58:13 PM
quote author=west2004
Reply 13 is rather incoherent and not relevant.  Can you restate it more clearly?/quote]

West2004, nation's balance of trade is explicitly integral to the most common formula, (i.e. the expenditure formula) for calculating GDPs.  Balance of trade is indirectly or directly integral to ALL conventional GDP calculating formulas. Those domestic jobs, knowledge and experience that directly or indirectly enabled the nation's production all contributed to their nation's GDP.  These are the benefits earned by producing nations and denied at least to the extent that a nation is a net importer.

I would like to see the formula you speak about regarding GDP calculation.

Also, your understanding is ignoring the fact that a high level of imports (which tend to be cheaper, and therefore more efficient, or the import would not happen) allow more efficient application of capital and more ability to invest money in domestic production through cost savings and greater returns and faster growth, thus growing GDP as fast or faster through greater efficiency.

Your ideas ignore the possibility and likelihood that when money is saved importing goods that we cannot produce as efficiently we have more capital to apply domestically and the returns, and therefore growth rates, are much higher.

YOur theory assumes that consumption is static and production must necessarily drop to the extent that imports fulfill that consumption.  Neither is the case.

Quote
National balance of trade is of no concern to enterprises that can simply reduce their excess labor force if they determine importing rather than producing is to their comparative advantage.
What's to individual or aggregate enterprises advantage may diverge from the remainder of the nation that are not principle parties of trade agreements. 

I disagree with this.  Importing only occurs when it is most efficient.  It allows for capital to be applied more efficiently growing real wealth of all individuals and companies, and allowing greater investment in the things that American CAN do efficiently and leads to greater economic growth.  So the concerns of enterprises, mainly efficiency, are directly in line with those of the nation.

Quote
Government can recognize and prohibit practices that are contrary to publics' interests.  Trade deficits are not to their nations' comparative advantages; they contribute absolutely nothing to their nation's GDP.

GDP is a measure of production.  If, through a great deal of importing, a nations enterprises are able to be more efficient and invest more in production, it absolutely will impact GDP positively.

Quote[There's precedents for this.  We have zoning and building regulations that protect those not directly party to determination of construction, use or location of a building].

That's not really relevant.  Those are local ordinances, not a national economic policy that stifles growth.

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 (http://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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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.

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

Quoted from Supposn
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.
* ***

Quoted from Solar within reply #50:
Yet you assume their entire product will be made from all US parts.
That's living in a Utopian world.

* ***

Transcribed from Supposn's reply #37:

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.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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?

Solar, because it requires an act of congress to:

Require importers to surrender Import Certificates in order to bring their goods into the USA;

For a federal agency such as the U.S. Customs Bureau to administer the IC policy, assess all imports into and the goods of U.S. exporters from USA who agree to pay the federal fees (to defray this proposal's direct federal expense.  The proposal's entire net expenses are all eventually paid by U.S. purchasers of imported goods);

U.S. treasuries issuance of IC's and destruction of used IC's.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 12:12:32 AM
Quoted from Supposn
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.
* ***

Quoted from Solar within reply #50:
Yet you assume their entire product will be made from all US parts.
That's living in a Utopian world.

* ***

Transcribed from Supposn's reply #37:

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.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I'm not talking about raw material.
Things like fuel pumps, wiper blades, headlights, hard drives, starting motors cast in Japan, copper windings from China, then assembled in Mexico.
You see, this is the problem, you are so myopic in your vision, you don't understand just how vast our network of trade runs.
If you interfere with this well oiled machine, you are going to put millions of people in the unemployment line, and not just here.
Your little plan could completely disrupt world trade and possibly create a long lasting world recession.
Man, listen to me, think beyond your nose, try looking at one or two particular industries and see how it might effect them in the worst possible manner.

Lets take the Quad runner and tractors industry, and how about refrigerators or refrigeration, look at how your plan would effect these two industries.
IF you were to institute your plan and their suppliers retaliate, farm industry will suffer greatly, price of food would sky rocket.
Refrigeration, food storage and medical operations around the nation that rely on imported parts to keep it working.
I have a feeling you're never actually looked into what a plan like yours might actually do.
So look at those two and get back to me.

Trade deficit is cycular in nature, but unlike Gov spending, will not kill us.

Why don't you put your energy to reducing the debt by focusing on areas we can cut spending.
Interfering with the free mkt will never ever produce any benefit, none whatsoever!

Quote from: Solar on April 16, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
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............................|/quote]

I believe Quiller's reply #44 was not germane to this thread.

My reply #46 was in response to reply #44; it describes a characteristic of an economy approaching utopian achievement.  It was certainly off –topic.

I don't understand why you chose to post a transcript of reply # 46 within your reply #48?  You didn't write anything that seems to refer to it.

What are you referring to within this sentence from your reply #48?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 07:17:46 AM

Quote from: Solar on April 16, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
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............................|/quote]

I believe Quiller's reply #44 was not germane to this thread.

My reply #46 was in response to reply #44; it describes a characteristic of an economy approaching utopian achievement.  It was certainly off –topic.

I don't understand why you chose to post a transcript of reply # 46 within your reply #48?  You didn't write anything that seems to refer to it.

What are you referring to within this sentence from your reply #48?

Respectfully, Supposn

? ? ?

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2012, 07:06:45 AM
I'm not talking about raw material.
Things like fuel pumps, wiper blades, headlights, hard drives, starting motors cast in Japan, copper windings from China, then assembled in Mexico.
You see, this is the problem, you are so myopic in your vision, you don't understand just how vast our network of trade runs...........

Solar, within this proposal, ALL goods entering the USA are assessed.
If an exporter of U.S. goods Chooses to pay the federal fees (that are NOT net federal revenues, and they are NOT a tax upon exporters of U.S. goods), the exporter's goods will be assessed prior to their leaving the USA;

All assessments are made by the same federal agency, in a similar manner;
they are made in accordance with the federal agency's guide lines that normally would only require annual review and update;
assessment values are applicable to estimated value at U.S. ports in U.S. dollars;
assessments are adjusted to exclude the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the assessed goods;
what has been or will be done to or with the assessed goods prior or after they're assessed is inconsequential to goods assessed values.  Once exported goods are assessed, it's generally illegal to modify the goods in any fashion prior to their leaving the USA, (i.e. the shipments sealed by the assessment agency).

Why do you insist upon inserting non-exiting complexity into the assessment of goods?  Everything you described in your afore mentioned comments are inconsequential to the assessment of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 08:12:37 AM
Solar, within this proposal, ALL goods entering the USA are assessed.
If an exporter of U.S. goods Chooses to pay the federal fees (that are NOT net federal revenues, and they are NOT a tax upon exporters of U.S. goods), the exporter's goods will be assessed prior to their leaving the USA;

All assessments are made by the same federal agency, in a similar manner;
they are made in accordance with the federal agency's guide lines that normally would only require annual review and update;
assessment values are applicable to estimated value at U.S. ports in U.S. dollars;
assessments are adjusted to exclude the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the assessed goods;
what has been or will be done to or with the assessed goods prior or after they're assessed is inconsequential to goods assessed values.  Once exported goods are assessed, it's generally illegal to modify the goods in any fashion prior to their leaving the USA, (i.e. the shipments sealed by the assessment agency).

Why do you insist upon inserting non-exiting complexity into the assessment of goods?  Everything you described in your afore mentioned comments are inconsequential to the assessment of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm not talking about exporters, I'm talking about imported goods.

Go back and read it again.

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2012, 07:06:45 AM
..................................Why don't you put your energy to reducing the debt by focusing on areas we can cut spending.................

Solar, I have little doubt that a significant improvement of USA's schools would be of the greatest social and economic benefit to our nation; but I'm unaware of any such "magic bullet".
I have some opinions but nothing of great significance.                     

If we could significantly reduce spending, that would be of great benefit; but the parties cannot agree among themselves as to which government services to cut.  If the parties could agree within themselves, they cannot agree with each other.

It is upon the issue of trade policy that I perceive the best of very thin possibilities for our nation to agree upon some positive, proactive solution to confront an economic problem. 

If only we could confront and significantly improve some aspect of one issue, it could possibly re-introduce compromise and accommodations into the halls of government and that could lead to improving or solving other problems.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2012, 07:06:45 AM
............................Why don't you put your energy to reducing the debt by focusing on areas we can cut spending......................

Solar, with the exception of libertarians that apparently also believe commercial rights trump over individual's rights, those who are dissatisfied with pure free trade's affect USA's economy can be found in significant proportions along the entire political spectrum.
But most of those unsatisfied people are aware of an extremely limited numbers of alternatives to a nation's absolutely free global trade.

I grant that when those at both extreme ends do learn of the Import Certificate, (i.e. the IC) proposal, they're still generally opposed to it. 

The left are opposed to IC's market driven features and the right's generally opposed to government regulations. 

U.S. citizens' awareness of Import Certificate proposals is comparatively non-existent.


At approximately 2004, USA's annual trade deficit of goods (excluding certain goods explained at end of this reply message.), approached a half trillion dollars.

We are not in a political climate conducive to compromise and accommodation but if and when that time should come, I perceive more support across the political spectrum for a significant change in USA's global trade policy rather than upon any other economic issue. 

I have full confidence in this Import Certificate proposal.

* * * Exclusions from 2004 import and export statistics:

I excluded federally price supported crops.
[The department of Agriculture spends to support specific crops prices within our nation.  Additionally they spend to subsidize the export of such crops from the USA.  Since ICs act as a subsidy of USA's goods, the Department of agriculture could within an IC policy, reduce their export subsidy rates without reducing USA's exports of price supported crops].

I excluded all petroleum, natural gas, jewelry and other precious or rare minerals products.

Respectfully, Supposn

I feel like I'm talking to a deaf man, you continue to repeat yourself.
I asked you specifically about the consequences of your proposed tax, yet you act like I spoke in another language.

Address my points or move along, I have no use for a myopic lib.

I'll repeat my post, and I expect an answer and if you aren't capable, then just say so.

I'm not talking about raw material.
Things like fuel pumps, wiper blades, headlights, hard drives, starting motors cast in Japan, copper windings from China, then assembled in Mexico.
You see, this is the problem, you are so myopic in your vision, you don't understand just how vast our network of trade runs.
If you interfere with this well oiled machine, you are going to put millions of people in the unemployment line, and not just here.
Your little plan could completely disrupt world trade and possibly create a long lasting world recession.
Man, listen to me, think beyond your nose, try looking at one or two particular industries and see how it might effect them in the worst possible manner.

Lets take the Quad runner and tractors industry, and how about refrigerators or refrigeration, look at how your plan would effect these two industries.
IF you were to institute your plan and their suppliers retaliate, farm industry will suffer greatly, price of food would sky rocket.
Refrigeration, food storage and medical operations around the nation that rely on imported parts to keep it working.
I have a feeling you're never actually looked into what a plan like yours might actually do.
So look at those two and get back to me.

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 08:12:37 AM
Solar, within this proposal, ALL goods entering the USA are assessed.
If an exporter of U.S. goods Chooses to pay the federal fees (that are NOT net federal revenues, and they are NOT a tax upon exporters of U.S. goods), the exporter's goods will be assessed prior to their leaving the USA;

All assessments are made by the same federal agency, in a similar manner;
they are made in accordance with the federal agency's guide lines that normally would only require annual review and update;
assessment values are applicable to estimated value at U.S. ports in U.S. dollars;
assessments are adjusted to exclude the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the assessed goods;
what has been or will be done to or with the assessed goods prior or after they're assessed is inconsequential to goods assessed values.  Once exported goods are assessed, it's generally illegal to modify the goods in any fashion prior to their leaving the USA, (i.e. the shipments sealed by the assessment agency).

Why do you insist upon inserting non-exiting complexity into the assessment of goods?  Everything you described in your afore mentioned comments are inconsequential to the assessment of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar wrote:

I'm not talking about exporters, I'm talking about imported goods.

Go back and read it again.
////////////////////////////
   
Solar, Imports and exports are assessed in the same manner. Return to the top of this reply and read the transcribed message again.
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
Solar wrote:

I'm not talking about exporters, I'm talking about imported goods.

Go back and read it again.
////////////////////////////
   
Solar, Imports and exports are assessed in the same manner. Return to the top of this reply and read the transcribed message again.
Respectfully, Supposn

Why is this going over your head?
Forget about exporters for a moment, I'm talking about importers ONLY!!!

Now answer my questions?

Solar, are you concerned because a Toyota may be assembled in a USA plant from Japanese components and then shipped to Central America?  Do you think that makes any difference in regard to an Import Certificate policy? It doesn't.

When those Japanese components entered the USA, the importer, (in this case Toyota N.A.) surrendered ICs with face values that covered the assessed value of those component shipments.  That's the value upon a USA entry dock, in U.S. dollars for large lots of components shipped in a manner suitable for a factory.  (The per unit assessment would be greater if the components were individually packaged and suitable for retail trade because that in effect is a different product with a different market value).

An exported Toyota vehicle is assessed as to its value on the dock of the U.S. port prior to being exported.  The entire shipment, (in this case the vehicle) rather than each individual piece is being assessed.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
Why is this going over your head?
Forget about exporters for a moment, I'm talking about importers ONLY!!!

Now answer my questions?

Solar, if you want a specific answer, ask a specific question.  I can't read your mind.

Respectfuilly, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 02:08:15 PM
Solar, are you concerned because a Toyota may be assembled in a USA plant from Japanese components and then shipped to Central America?  Do you think that makes any difference in regard to an Import Certificate policy? It doesn't.

When those Japanese components entered the USA, the importer, (in this case Toyota N.A.) surrendered ICs with face values that covered the assessed value of those component shipments.  That's the value upon a USA entry dock, in U.S. dollars for large lots of components shipped in a manner suitable for a factory.  (The per unit assessment would be greater if the components were individually packaged and suitable for retail trade because that in effect is a different product with a different market value).

An exported Toyota vehicle is assessed as to its value on the dock of the U.S. port prior to being exported.  The entire shipment, (in this case the vehicle) rather than each individual piece is being assessed.

Respectfully, Supposn

What you don't understand is Toyota doesn't import these parts, some little company imports them for Toyota and other compnaies.
Do you have any idea as to the amount of paperwork involved in your little scheme, or the cost added to every part imported?
Then you have people that will find other ways around your scheme, making them overnight felons, simply because they didn't have the capital to buy into your tax scheme.
Think Carbon Credits.

But you still haven't addressed my specific question regarding consequences when other trading partners take this at face value, a penalty on imported products.
They WILL retaliate, they know you are trying to cut them out of the picture in the long run.
Don't be so naive.
So again, I ask you, with my previous post in mind about small parts required for maintenance of refrigeration or Quad runners, something we don't even build in this country. 
How will you deal with our collapse of society on a whole?

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
Solar wrote:

I'm not talking about exporters, I'm talking about imported goods.

Go back and read it again.
////////////////////////////
   
Solar, Imports and exports are assessed in the same manner. Return to the top of this reply and read the transcribed message again.
Respectfully, Supposn

No they are not, exporters are given credits, where importers are penalized.
Every one of our trading partners will not stand for this, they will retaliate, most likely either quit buying our products, or raise the price of products we buy from them.
If I were one of these countries, I would look for friendlier mkts with which to trade.
All you will manage to do is start a trade war.
Why is that so hard to conceptualize?

Am I being clear enough for you?
I know you were not born in the U.S. or this would not go over your head so easily.

Supposn wrote:
Solar, Imports and exports are assessed in the same manner.
* * *

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2012, 02:40:35 PM
No they are not, exporters are given credits, where importers are penalized.
.....................

Solar, with regard to the proposal for an Import Certificate policy:
What "credit" and/or "penalty" provisions are you referring to?  I recall no such provisions within the IC proposal.

Again I write "if you're seeking explicit answers, you should write explicit questions.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2012, 02:34:40 PM
What you don't understand is Toyota doesn't import these parts, some little company imports them for Toyota and other compnaies.
Do you have any idea as to the amount of paperwork involved in your little scheme, or the cost added to every part imported?
Then you have people that will find other ways around your scheme, making them overnight felons, simply because they didn't have the capital to buy into your tax scheme.
Think Carbon Credits.

But you still haven't addressed my specific question regarding consequences when other trading partners take this at face value, a penalty on imported products.
They WILL retaliate, they know you are trying to cut them out of the picture in the long run.
Don't be so naive.
So again, I ask you, with my previous post in mind about small parts required for maintenance of refrigeration or Quad runners, something we don't even build in this country. 
How will you deal with our collapse of society on a whole?

Solar, I won't or maybe I can't speculate if your comments are reasonable or paranoiac hysteria.
You wrote a 165 word reply that's full of blurbs which may have meaning to you but are meaningless to me.

For example you wrote "So again, I ask you, with my previous post in mind about small parts required for maintenance of refrigeration or Quad runners, something we don't even build in this country".

You don't give me a clue as to what you believe is the problem?  Explicitly explain how what you've written is related to the Import Certificate proposal?  Explicitly what's your question? Explicitly what's your complaint? You fault me because you're unable to express yourself in an understandable manner?  I'm not a mind reader.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 17, 2012, 10:51:01 PM
Solar, I won't or maybe I can't speculate if your comments are reasonable or paranoiac hysteria.
You wrote a 165 word reply that's full of blurbs which may have meaning to you but are meaningless to me.

For example you wrote "So again, I ask you, with my previous post in mind about small parts required for maintenance of refrigeration or Quad runners, something we don't even build in this country".

You don't give me a clue as to what you believe is the problem?  Explicitly explain how what you've written is related to the Import Certificate proposal?  Explicitly what's your question? Explicitly what's your complaint? You fault me because you're unable to express yourself in an understandable manner?  I'm not a mind reader.

Respectfully, Supposn

You know why you don't understand it? Because you don't understand how free mkt/ free trade works.
This is why I have such a problem with your plan, you have no idea what you're proposing, if you did, you would find a new cause, because this one will kill trade faster then a nuclear attack.

I'll ask you again, what country are you from?
I ask, because it would make it easier to explain the issue to you.
Most Americans come with basic knowledge of Capitalism, you on the other hand, are extremely void of certain aspects on the subject.
No offense intended, but its why you simply can't see the consequences of what you propose.
People are not machines, they will not do as they are told, socialist nations are another story, but here in the U.S..

Solar, for a good portion of my life, I supported my family by writing computer programs and analyzing businesses systems during good portion of my life.
I personally may be more disorganized than most other people but I was appreciated for my ability to analyze undocumented business procedures and determine what was being done, and how it was done.  My profession required me to find or bring order to the chaos that was presented to me.

Before introducing a new or modified system into the corporation's operations, I had to test it for "bugs", (i.e. failures that never yet occurred during the system's development and the possibility of those failures were not apparent to me or anyone else).
I developed programs to generate test data for combinations of circumstances I couldn't conceive because their occurrences were impossible.  From such test data I learned what the computer would do if it (correctly or falsely) sensed the impossible has occurred.  If our group did inadvertently create something containing bugs, I fixed them or directed someone in my group to rectify their own errors.
A newly created or existing sub-system and all of the sub-systems' programs  or the finished sub system passed vigorous testing before being installed into the corporation's live system.

The point is my valid experience with the detection of unapparent and unanticipated possibilities of system failures.
I'm thus far satisfied that this Import Certificate proposal is worthy of further consideration.

You disagree but are unable to EXPLITLY describe a condition or circumstance where this proposal is likely to fail or the manner of its failure.  You imply and allude but are never explicit.  I regret that you haven't thought through some of your implications.

Solar, I'm running late.  I'll finish this reply when I return.
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 18, 2012, 11:38:27 AM
Solar, for a good portion of my life, I supported my family by writing computer programs and analyzing businesses systems during good portion of my life.
I personally may be more disorganized than most other people but I was appreciated for my ability to analyze undocumented business procedures and determine what was being done, and how it was done.  My profession required me to find or bring order to the chaos that was presented to me.

Before introducing a new or modified system into the corporation's operations, I had to test it for "bugs", (i.e. failures that never yet occurred during the system's development and the possibility of those failures were not apparent to me or anyone else).
I developed programs to generate test data for combinations of circumstances I couldn't conceive because their occurrences were impossible.  From such test data I learned what the computer would do if it (correctly or falsely) sensed the impossible has occurred.  If our group did inadvertently create something containing bugs, I fixed them or directed someone in my group to rectify their own errors.
A newly created or existing sub-system and all of the sub-systems' programs  or the finished sub system passed vigorous testing before being installed into the corporation's live system.

The point is my valid experience with the detection of unapparent and unanticipated possibilities of system failures.
I'm thus far satisfied that this Import Certificate proposal is worthy of further consideration.

You disagree but are unable to EXPLITLY describe a condition or circumstance where this proposal is likely to fail or the manner of its failure.  You imply and allude but are never explicit.  I regret that you haven't thought through some of your implications.

Solar, I'm running late.  I'll finish this reply when I return.
Respectfully, Supposn

What country are you from, is the question to hard?
Secondly, I gave you a solid question regarding consequences, yet you claim to be a problem solver?

Heres the thing, you are trying to validate socialism, a concept that has never worked.
No matter how hard you try, no matter how many answers you come up with, there will always be complications/consequences.

Your proposal will create problems with trade, you will piss off our trading partners, they will retaliate.
Yet you claim you've thought this through in its entirety?

In all your wisdom, have you even considered this as a possibility?
Answer: Of course you haven't, or you would have been able to understand my previous question.

I suggest you take some business courses to get a better understanding of how Capitalism works.
There are core principals that make Capitalism work.
What you are proposing completely goes against these principals.

Quote from: Solar on April 18, 2012, 11:58:44 AM
What country are you from, is the question to hard?
Secondly, I gave you a solid question regarding consequences, yet you claim to be a problem solver?

Heres the thing, you are trying to validate socialism, a concept that has never worked.
No matter how hard you try, no matter how many answers you come up with, there will always be complications/consequences.

Your proposal will create problems with trade, you will piss off our trading partners, they will retaliate.
Yet you claim you've thought this through in its entirety?

In all your wisdom, have you even considered this as a possibility?
Answer: Of course you haven't, or you would have been able to understand my previous question.

I suggest you take some business courses to get a better understanding of how Capitalism works.
There are core principals that make Capitalism work.
What you are proposing completely goes against these principals.

Hmm...Do you think he would learn something from the teachers or professors that we now have.  I don't think they even know or care how Capitalism works!   Just look at the morons, idiots and imbeciles there putting out.  Just saying.   :blink:

Quote from: Supposn on April 18, 2012, 11:38:27 AM
Solar, for a good portion of my life, I supported my family by writing computer programs and analyzing businesses systems during good portion of my life.

Same here.

Quote
I personally may be more disorganized than most other people but I was appreciated for my ability to analyze undocumented business procedures and determine what was being done, and how it was done.  My profession required me to find or bring order to the chaos that was presented to me.

It isn't that big of a deal. Get over yourself.

Quote
Before introducing a new or modified system into the corporation's operations, I had to test it for "bugs", (i.e. failures that never yet occurred during the system's development and the possibility of those failures were not apparent to me or anyone else).

Congratulations.  You do what everyone does before rolling out changes to production.  Wow.

Quote
I developed programs to generate test data for combinations of circumstances I couldn't conceive because their occurrences were impossible.

Wow.  You tested your code.  Neat.

Quote
  From such test data I learned what the computer would do if it (correctly or falsely) sensed the impossible has occurred.  If our group did inadvertently create something containing bugs, I fixed them or directed someone in my group to rectify their own errors.
A newly created or existing sub-system and all of the sub-systems' programs  or the finished sub system passed vigorous testing before being installed into the corporation's live system.

You performed Q&A and tested your changes. Amazing.

Quote
The point is my valid experience with the detection of unapparent and unanticipated possibilities of system failures.
I'm thus far satisfied that this Import Certificate proposal is worthy of further consideration.

Odds are I have more experience than you in your field, and I can promise you have no clue about what you are talking about in regards to economics. No offense.

Quote
You disagree but are unable to EXPLITLY describe a condition or circumstance where this proposal is likely to fail or the manner of its failure.  You imply and allude but are never explicit.  I regret that you haven't thought through some of your implications.

Why is it Solar's job to educate you on the basic economics?

Quote
Solar, I'm running late.  I'll finish this reply when I return.
Respectfully, Supposn

Hurry back!

Quote from: taxed on April 18, 2012, 02:36:55 PM
Same here.
It isn't that big of a deal. Get over yourself.
Congratulations.  You do what everyone does before rolling out changes to production.  Wow.

Wow.  You tested your code.  Neat.

You performed Q&A and tested your changes. Amazing.

Odds are I have more experience than you in your field, and I can promise you have no clue about what you are talking about in regards to economics. No offense.

Why is it Solar's job to educate you on the basic economics?

Hurry back!

Interesting how writing code can be equated to completely overhauling our free trade agreements...

Quote from: Supposn on April 18, 2012, 11:38:27 AM
Solar, for a good portion of my life, I supported my family by writing computer programs and analyzing businesses systems during good portion of my life.
I personally may be more disorganized than most other people but I was appreciated for my ability to analyze undocumented business procedures and determine what was being done, and how it was done.  My profession required me to find or bring order to the chaos that was presented to me.

Before introducing a new or modified system into the corporation's operations, I had to test it for "bugs", (i.e. failures that never yet occurred during the system's development and the possibility of those failures were not apparent to me or anyone else).
I developed programs to generate test data for combinations of circumstances I couldn't conceive because their occurrences were impossible.  From such test data I learned what the computer would do if it (correctly or falsely) sensed the impossible has occurred.  If our group did inadvertently create something containing bugs, I fixed them or directed someone in my group to rectify their own errors.
A newly created or existing sub-system and all of the sub-systems' programs  or the finished sub system passed vigorous testing before being installed into the corporation's live system.

The point is my valid experience with the detection of unapparent and unanticipated possibilities of system failures.
I'm thus far satisfied that this Import Certificate proposal is worthy of further consideration.

You disagree but are unable to EXPLITLY describe a condition or circumstance where this proposal is likely to fail or the manner of its failure.  You imply and allude but are never explicit.  I regret that you haven't thought through some of your implications.

Solar, I'm running late.  I'll finish this reply when I return.
Respectfully, Supposn

Heres the question that I hope you can understand.
Just for shits and grins, lets say you impose your tax on exporters and they quit importing, which they will.
Now the consequences of this, is that our trading partners don't like it and retaliate against our exporters.
What will you do then?

Please don't tell me you haven't thought about this.

Quote from: Solar on April 18, 2012, 03:29:53 PM
Interesting how writing code can be equated to completely overhauling our free trade agreements...

According to him, coders are Marxists....

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2012, 02:34:40 PM
...................Do you have any idea as to the amount of paperwork involved in your little scheme, or the cost added to every part imported?

Solar, importers' additional expense is the acquisition of Import Certificates and additional photo copies of shipping invoices and bills of lading.  The only problem is home land security is now apparently not reading or fully considering the bills of lading and shipping invoices with regard to their current home land security obligations.

You write inexplicit blurbs with no EXPLICIT mention of the problem you claim they entail.
I have a feeling you're never actually looked into how the Import Certificate policy would actually interact with the subjects of your blurbs.

For examples what problems related to the Import Certificate proposal do you find with the following;(please be EXPLICIT):

"fuel pumps, wiper blades, headlights, hard drives, starting motors cast in Japan, copper windings from China, then assembled in Mexico"; "Toyota doesn't import these (Japanese) parts, some little company imports them for Toyota and other companies", "Quad runner and tractors industry"; "Refrigeration, food storage and medical operations","manufacturers here in the US depend on tiny parts from other countries",not all imports are complete products, some may be less than 1% of a product, "not all imports are complete products, some may be less than 1% of a product", "exporters are given credits, where importers are penalized"?

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar, it's no surprise to ether of us that I doubt much of what you've written.
This writing's so inexplicit that it's almost meaningless.  I can't refute meaningless expressions.

Unless you can better explain what you actually meant (relative to the Import Certificate proposal), I can at best consider these blurbs as exuberant nonsense or at worst deliberately incorrect.

For example you wrote:

(that I) "want government 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";

(regarding the IC proposal) "there's an "issue of Constitutionality, of which it is not, though there is precedent" (and I) "want to give government even more search and seizure power".

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This paragraph is sufficiently explicit and it's obviously nonsense:

" 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 government workers to watch over these importers, adding more to the cost".

Let's start with the last sentence.  What you suggest would be obviously legal and lawyers wouldn't waste their time arguing otherwise.  If a U.S. producing enterprise wants to spend more expensive U. S. labor trying to decrease what would be a much a much lesser federal fee, why should anyone try stop them?  Remember these fees are not net tax revenue.  They are by law (if the act's properly drafted), set to defray federal direct expenses due to the IC policy.   Would you spend many more dollars to save fewer nickels?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on April 18, 2012, 03:34:19 PM
Heres the question that I hope you can understand.
Just for shits and grins, lets say you impose your tax on exporters and they quit importing, which they will.
Now the consequences of this, is that our trading partners don't like it and retaliate against our exporters.
What will you do then?

Please don't tell me you haven't thought about this.

Solar, in response to your reply #84, refer to reply #59, posted at 8:31AM, April 16, 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

Answer the question. Are you an American educated in our school system?

No evasions. Yes or no.

Supposn....you coomie bastard....answer the freaking question.....with ALL your analytical expertise, as you so well stated.....is it really that hard to answer

WHAT FUCKING COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM....PERIOD!

Mods...if he doesn't answer the question...boot him off.

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 04:24:28 AM
Solar, in response to your reply #84, refer to reply #59, posted at 8:31AM, April 16, 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

OK, now you're starting to piss me off, you claim I am not explicit in my questions, then when I ask point blank, you refer me back to your other rambling nonsense where you completely evade the question.
So I ask again, because in all your wisdom, you have overlooked the fact that you are micromanaging the business of our trading partners that want no part of this nonsense.
Just because you impose it on unwilling Americans, doesn't mean our trading partners will sit by and accept it.
Listen to me! They Will Not Accept This Nonsense!!!!

So I repeat!
You impose your tax on exporters and they quit importing to us, which they will.
Now the consequences of this, is that our trading partners don't like it and retaliate against our exporters, that includes all kinds of necessities, from refined fuel for the east coast, to parts for light rail trains, something we import all of.

You see, we trade with other countries, and this is a good thing, but your plan punishes other countries indirectly, by trying to force a change on the American importer to find a new source of product here at home.
So pissing off our partners would have severe side effects to our own economy.

What will you do when everything falls apart?
And it will?

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on April 19, 2012, 05:21:15 AM
Supposn....you coomie bastard....answer the freaking question.....with ALL your analytical expertise, as you so well stated.....is it really that hard to answer

WHAT FUCKING COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM....PERIOD!

Mods...if he doesn't answer the question...boot him off.

HokieWoodChuck, your sweet disposition is a blessing and joy to your mother?  I suppose she's proud of your use of language and good manners?

The schools you attended and your teachers would be gratified by your understanding of the concepts they teach?  So many children leave school and remain ignorant of individual's elementary rights of privacy or our nation's democratic ideals.

Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 09:19:15 AM
HokieWoodChuck, your sweet disposition is a blessing and joy to your mother?  I suppose she's proud of your use of language and good manners?

The schools you attended and your teachers would be gratified by your understanding of the concepts they teach?  So many children leave school and remain ignorant of individual's elementary rights of privacy or our nation's democratic ideals.

Supposn

You forgot Respectfully. 

That's correct.....matter of fact supposn....they are proud of me for using my freedom of speech rights.

You don't like it....take a long walk on a short pier.

You are fairly good at throwing thoughts around with no basis of fact....just conjecture.

Solar, I tried and believe I've succeeded to answer all your questions RELATIVE TO the Import Certificate policy that I support.  If you believe I've overlooked something, you can specifically point that out.  I try to explicitly answer explicit questions.

Explicitly state what are the specific questions that you believe I have not addressed?  You disagree with many of my prior statements and answers.  That does not constitute the evasion of a question.

The trade policy requires importers to surrender ICs covering the assessed values of their goods entering the USA.  You consider that as micro-managing foreign nations; I do not. If you're correct, every nation currently demanding a tariff or a fee for U.S. products entering their nation is currently micro-managing the USA.

An IC policy will be of net economic benefit to USA but it's particularly beneficial to our nation's wage earning families.  Our current policy of seeking pure free trade reduces our GDP more than otherwise; (otherwise being our nation having adopted an IC trade policy).  Our current trade policy is particularly detrimental to wage earning families.

If charity is to be our national policy, it should be funded from the federal budget and be borne by all taxpayers.  Wage earning families are the poorest working families and are among the poorer segments of our population.  They should not pay a disproportionate portion of our trade deficit's detrimental effect upon our GDP.

Any nation that would be reluctant to trade with the USA will do themselves much more harm than their harm to the USA.  The USA is still a rich market.  If Japan or China wants to discard their shares of USA's markets, other nations including ourselves will fill in the gap.

I'm unwilling to betray the best interests of USA's economy and our wage earners to serve the interests of any foreign nations.  I'm in general disagreement with your reply #91.

Respectfully, Supposn

And this troll again ignores direct questions.

Are you American-educated? Where are you posting from?

Evasion gets you the full unsparing treatment here. Prepare to get NUKED until you finally and DIRECTLY answer.

Quote from: quiller on April 19, 2012, 11:26:05 AM
And this troll again ignores direct questions.

Are you American-educated? Where are you posting from?

Evasion gets you the full unsparing treatment here. Prepare to get NUKED until you finally and DIRECTLY answer.

By not answering the question, its apparent hes not a U.S. citizen by birth.
His evasive nature in avoiding answering my other questions is also proof he knows I'm right and would expose the flaw in his thinking.

Quote from: walkstall on April 19, 2012, 09:49:42 AM

You forgot Respectfully.

WalksTall, posting that message was one of those infrequent times that I included everything; I forgot nothing.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 11:20:48 AM
Solar, I tried and believe I've succeeded to answer all your questions RELATIVE TO the Import Certificate policy that I support.  If you believe I've overlooked something, you can specifically point that out.  I try to explicitly answer explicit questions.

Explicitly state what are the specific questions that you believe I have not addressed?  You disagree with many of my prior statements and answers.  That does not constitute the evasion of a question.

The trade policy requires importers to surrender ICs covering the assessed values of their goods entering the USA.  You consider that as micro-managing foreign nations; I do not. If you're correct, every nation currently demanding a tariff or a fee for U.S. products entering their nation is currently micro-managing the USA.

An IC policy will be of net economic benefit to USA but it's particularly beneficial to our nation's wage earning families.  Our current policy of seeking pure free trade reduces our GDP more than otherwise; (otherwise being our nation having adopted an IC trade policy).  Our current trade policy is particularly detrimental to wage earning families.

I gave you explicit questions, but it obviously your intention to play ignorant in your understanding them.

QuoteIf charity is to be our national policy, it should be funded from the federal budget and be borne by all taxpayers.  Wage earning families are the poorest working families and are among the poorer segments of our population.  They should not pay a disproportionate portion of our trade deficit's detrimental effect upon our GDP.

This statement is proof of your socialist core belief.
Charity in America is a personal responsibility, not the governments!

QuoteAny nation that would be reluctant to trade with the USA will do themselves much more harm than their harm to the USA.  The USA is still a rich market.  If Japan or China wants to discard their shares of USA's markets, other nations including ourselves will fill in the gap.

Wrong, there are many countries that don't trade with us.
If say Japan decided to retaliate, it would hurt us far more than it would them.

QuoteI'm unwilling to betray the best interests of USA's economy and our wage earners to serve the interests of any foreign nations.

This will do nothing for the wage earner, other than raise their cost of living expense.
 

QuoteI'm in general disagreement with your reply #91.

Allow me to give you an example of interfering with trade.
You have a lemonade stand, you sell your product at a fair price, your customers return because you're not only fair, but make a quality product.
Now comes regulations by the gov. I want you to read through this article and observe a common theme, that theme being the gov playing favorites in the free mkt.
Which is exactly what your tax scheme does, it plays favorite towards exporters, while penalizing importers.
That is not how a FREE mkt works, you are not proposing a level playing field.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/)

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 11:37:30 AM
WalksTall, posting that message was one of those infrequent times that I included everything; I forgot nothing.

Respectfully, Supposn

Did you forget where you're from, and where you were educated? Why can't you answer a basic question, but instead think we are so stupid that we do not notice your evasions?

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2012, 11:33:07 AM
By not answering the question, its apparent hes not a U.S. citizen by birth.
His evasive nature in avoiding answering my other questions is also proof he knows I'm right and would expose the flaw in his thinking.

Whether you're right or wrong is not my issue. I smelled troll from his first question to me, and I am thus far 3-0 asking him essentially the same two questions. (The 3 being the asking, the 0 being the answers.)

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 11:37:30 AM
WalksTall, posting that message was one of those infrequent times that I included everything; I forgot nothing.

Respectfully, Supposn

From my post you can see that it is walkstall little t.   I understand the W as it is the start of a sentences.   I am not a programmer in good standing.   :ohmy:

Quote from: quiller on April 19, 2012, 12:26:53 PM
Whether you're right or wrong is not my issue. I smelled troll from his first question to me, and I am thus far 3-0 asking him essentially the same two questions. (The 3 being the asking, the 0 being the answers.)

The only thing certain, is he's from new Jersey if I remember correctly.
I'm more curious where he was brainwashed into believing socialism actually has a chance at success, considering its never worked once anywhere in the world...

Quote from: walkstall on April 19, 2012, 12:30:25 PM

From my post you can see that it is walkstall little t.   I understand the W as it is the start of a sentences.   I am not a programmer in good standing.   :ohmy:

And, may I add, you are the only wt still standing!  :thumbsup:

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 11:37:30 AM
WalksTall, posting that message was one of those infrequent times that I included everything; I forgot nothing.

Respectfully, Supposn

I personally don't need nor want your respect therefore your memory is not needed.

Now, answer the question.....or do you have the balls? Probably not.

Only cowards hide their intentions and past.

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2012, 11:33:07 AM
By not answering the question, its apparent hes not a U.S. citizen by birth.
His evasive nature in avoiding answering my other questions is also proof he knows I'm right and would expose the flaw in his thinking.

Solar, beware of what and who you believe to be right.  You may believe that Romney is right at any moment he's facing the same direction you are.  But Romney is likely to change direction whenever he finds it expedient to do so.

If you determine logical truth by a person's flag, that's a flaw in your logic.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2012, 12:31:38 PM
The only thing certain, is he's from new Jersey if I remember correctly.
I'm more curious where he was brainwashed into believing socialism actually has a chance at success, considering its never worked once anywhere in the world...

Tut, tut, that's no excuse, comrade site owner. As our messiah the mussie maggot assures us, socialism has failed because the right bunch of income-redistributing rats were not in charge.

We must punish executive competence. No CEO should earn more than the janitor --- THAT will encourage top performance! We must lower the standard of living for those whose minds CAN find solutions and not become a further drain on state or federal coffers. We must punish the smart, and reward the schools which pretend to teach the rest of us.

Yes, comrade, we must adopt steep tariffs to protect the very same grossly overpaid union slugs whose shabby work in Detroit became a global laughingstock.

May all our cars run like Chinese bicycles, and may all our former trading partners (who own all the rare earths we need for chip-making) BE SURE to let us know how they feel, once we run out.

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 12:51:02 PM
Solar, beware of what and who you believe to be right.  You may believe that Romney is right at any moment he's facing the same direction you are.  But Romney is likely to change direction whenever he finds it expedient to do so.

If you determine logical truth by a person's flag, that's a flaw in your logic.

Respectfully, Supposn

LOL! Romney is a socialist no matter what direction he faces, much like you, he too has a flawed set of core beliefs regarding our way of life.
Which is why I ask your place of birth, because it is glaringly obvious you do not understand the core principals of Capitalism.

So why haven't you responded to my Lemonade analogy?

Quote from: quiller on April 19, 2012, 12:42:04 PM
And, may I add, you are the only wt still standing!  :thumbsup:

ROTFLMAF  :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Quote from: walkstall on April 19, 2012, 01:27:05 PM

ROTFLMAF  :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Said the pregnant choirmistress to the bishop, "Timing is everything!"

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages54.fotki.com%2Fv627%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F10163829%2Fweaselalterego2200x358-vi.jpg&hash=5ca2658d22c2aadf345614c9ef1b69b908be87fc)

Supposn, I have let you post your links to your blog, so in return, kindly start answering basic questions.

Be respectful.

Quote from: taxed on April 19, 2012, 02:41:13 PM
Supposn, I have let you post your links to your blog, so in return, kindly start answering basic questions.

Be respectful.

Taxed, I wasn't aware that my blog supporting an Import Certificate proposal was contrary to the rules of the Conservative Political Forum, (i.e. CPF).
You wrote that you've thus far permitted it as an exceptional accommodation.  I thank you for that.

I'm not a lawyer but hope the fact that I'm the author of the linked site's content, it's directly related to the subject of my discussion thread and does not in any manner seek to raise monetary funds are all good reasons for CPF top permit the link to remain within my messages.

The question of my birth and upbringing is of no importance and is not germane to the concept of an Import Certificate trade policy.  I'm by nature not shy or timid.

I'm troubled by someone believing they are absolutely without exception entitled to receive an answer for any question they wish to ask.  In the United States of America, no police-person or officer of a court has such an absolute entitlement.

I appreciate the polite tone of your reply and wish to respond with equal politeness and respect.  I will answer the question just this one time if I have your assurance that CPF will not in the future make any similar demand upon anyone.  Otherwise do whatever you believe is your duty in this case.

Respectfully, Supposn

Look who tells US which rules he will and won't follow!

This has become real tiresome...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 19, 2012, 09:37:05 PM
This has become real tiresome...

He's got this delusion of adequacy which prevents his genetic vapidity from shining through.

He's not entitled to respect if he won't answer questions.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages56.fotki.com%2Fv1298%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Ftrollseasonjustopened332x446-vi.jpg&hash=fba17a5797cb68633a7df7aefe3591ca48bb8d1d)

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 08:39:11 PM
Taxed, I wasn't aware that my blog supporting an Import Certificate proposal was contrary to the rules of the Conservative Political Forum,

Not at all. You may post on any topics you wish.

Quote
You wrote that you've thus far permitted it as an exceptional accommodation.  I thank you for that.

You are quite welcome.

Quote
I'm not a lawyer

Clearly.

Quote
but hope the fact that I'm the author of the linked site's content, it's directly related to the subject of my discussion thread and does not in any manner seek to raise monetary funds are all good reasons for CPF top permit the link to remain within my messages.

It's principal.  It's sort of you like going to my house for the first time and walking into the kitchen, opening the fridge, and drinking the milk right from the container.  Let's get to know each other first.  Or, if your blog had more intellectual density, it would be equivalent to hot super model walking in; it wouldn't be a problem.

Quote
The question of my birth

Your birth is not in question.  We assume you were indeed born.

Quote
and upbringing

We pretty much already have an idea...

Quote
is of no importance and is not germane to the concept of an Import Certificate trade policy.

It's sort of like finding out how mentally challenged someone is before you really start making fun of them...  Your perspective is so clueless that you are either a non-citizen with English as a second language, or you have a severe learning disability.  Help us determine the case, respectfully.

Quote
  I'm by nature not shy or timid.

Except for the part where you won't divulge what country you are from...

Quote
I'm troubled by someone believing they are absolutely without exception entitled to receive an answer for any question they wish to ask.  In the United States of America, no police-person or officer of a court has such an absolute entitlement.

Disclosing your origin will help us understand why you have a faulty perspective a little better.  It isn't out of spite.

Quote
I appreciate the polite tone of your reply and wish to respond with equal politeness and respect.  I will answer the question just this one time if I have your assurance that CPF will not in the future make any similar demand upon anyone.  Otherwise do whatever you believe is your duty in this case.

Respectfully, Supposn

You are required to bring your own intellectual ammo.  If you keep shooting a water gun, you will get drenched.

Quote from: Supposn on April 19, 2012, 08:39:11 PM
Taxed, I wasn't aware that my blog supporting an Import Certificate proposal was contrary to the rules of the Conservative Political Forum, (i.e. CPF).
You wrote that you've thus far permitted it as an exceptional accommodation.  I thank you for that.

I'm not a lawyer but hope the fact that I'm the author of the linked site's content, it's directly related to the subject of my discussion thread and does not in any manner seek to raise monetary funds are all good reasons for CPF top permit the link to remain within my messages.

The question of my birth and upbringing is of no importance and is not germane to the concept of an Import Certificate trade policy.  I'm by nature not shy or timid.

I'm troubled by someone believing they are absolutely without exception entitled to receive an answer for any question they wish to ask.  In the United States of America, no police-person or officer of a court has such an absolute entitlement.

I appreciate the polite tone of your reply and wish to respond with equal politeness and respect.  I will answer the question just this one time if I have your assurance that CPF will not in the future make any similar demand upon anyone.  Otherwise do whatever you believe is your duty in this case.

Respectfully, Supposn

Taxed touched on it a bit, allow me to expand.
I ask your origin of birth, because it would help me to understand where your basis of ideas are coming from.
No born and raised American would propose your ideas towards a free mkt without understanding the consequences first.
For example, being a capitalist society as we are, we have a different form of etiquette, obviously something you don't seem to understand.
You entered our home and posted links that potentially conflict with our business model.

Think of it this way, Sears runs an ad in your town and spends thousands of dollars to bring in customers, and what do you do, you walk in and start handing out fliers to your store advertising the same product.

We are a business and you did exactly that, you walked in and advertised your wares, this is known as very rude in American culture.

For the same reason what you propose goes against the very core of our beliefs toward free trade, the less gov interference, the better.
Which is why I gave you the Lemonade analogy, in hopes that you might get a better understanding of the effects of to much gov intervention on Private business.

I've not been trying to ridicule you, I've been trying to understand you.
We just have different rules of social behavior in the U.S. when it comes to business.
We are raised to believe gov is not the answer, they are the problem, I have to assume you were raised in an opposite manner.

Quote from: Solar on April 20, 2012, 07:37:39 AM
Taxed touched on it a bit, allow me to expand.
I ask your origin of birth, because it would help me to understand where your basis of ideas are coming from.
No born and raised American would propose your ideas towards a free mkt without understanding the consequences first.
For example, being a capitalist society as we are, we have a different form of etiquette, obviously something you don't seem to understand.
You entered our home and posted links that potentially conflict with our business model.

Think of it this way, Sears runs an ad in your town and spends thousands of dollars to bring in customers, and what do you do, you walk in and start handing out fliers to your store advertising the same product.

We are a business and you did exactly that, you walked in and advertised your wares, this is known as very rude in American culture.

For the same reason what you propose goes against the very core of our beliefs toward free trade, the less gov interference, the better.
Which is why I gave you the Lemonade analogy, in hopes that you might get a better understanding of the effects of to much gov intervention on Private business.

I've not been trying to ridicule you, I've been trying to understand you.
We just have different rules of social behavior in the U.S. when it comes to business.
We are raised to believe gov is not the answer, they are the problem, I have to assume you were raised in an opposite manner.

Sorry Solar, but they do walk among us.  I see them all the time when I go into the big city.   :sad:   My wife calls them the walking brain dead!

Quote from: walkstall on April 20, 2012, 10:41:24 AM

Sorry Solar, but they do walk among us.  I see them all the time when I go into the big city.   :sad:   My wife calls them the walking brain dead!

They prefer 'Progressive' I call them what they are, liberals, or rather Dumb Asses.
Yes they are out there, like Zombies, they are the brain-dead amongst us, unable to think for themselves.

Hmmmm, not a bad moniker for liberal, Zombies...

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2012, 11:49:02 AM

\Allow me to give you an example of interfering with trade.
You have a lemonade stand, you sell your product at a fair price, your customers return because you're not only fair, but make a quality product.
Now comes regulations by the gov. I want you to read through this article and observe a common theme, that theme being the gov playing favorites in the free mkt.
Which is exactly what your tax scheme does, it plays favorite towards exporters, while penalizing importers.
That is not how a FREE mkt works, you are not proposing a level playing field.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/)

Solar, my understanding of the "most favored nation", (i.e. "MFN") ¸ clause common within many international trade agreements is they agree to treat each OTHER in an equal fashion, (i.e. without favor or discrimination).  Dependent upon how the clause is defined, the clause may mean that a nation could favor their own to the disadvantage of all other nations.  I'm a proponent of that version of MFN that WE should apply to both ourselves and the nation's we purchase from.

If as you believe, the U.S. median wage must continue to decrease while the economies of other nations are overtaking us, our national demise is assured. 
Your evaluation of the IC trade proposal is incorrect.  It would work and work well.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 20, 2012, 02:26:24 PM
Solar, my understanding of the "most favored nation", (i.e. "MFN") ¸ clause common within many international trade agreements is they agree to treat each OTHER in an equal fashion, (i.e. without favor or discrimination).  Dependent upon how the clause is defined, the clause may mean that a nation could favor their own to the disadvantage of all other nations.  I'm a proponent of that version of MFN that WE should apply to both ourselves and the nation's we purchase from.

If as you believe, the U.S. median wage must continue to decrease while the economies of other nations are overtaking us, our national demise is assured. 
Your evaluation of the IC trade proposal is incorrect.  It would work and work well.

Respectfully, Supposn

I guess if you can't actually respond to the crux of my post, then this conversation is over.
I'm very tired of your evasive tactics, either answer my points, or move on.

Here it is again, just in case you missed it.

Taxed touched on it a bit, allow me to expand.
I ask your origin of birth, because it would help me to understand where your basis of ideas are coming from.
No born and raised American would propose your ideas towards a free mkt without understanding the consequences first.
For example, being a capitalist society as we are, we have a different form of etiquette, obviously something you don't seem to understand.
You entered our home and posted links that potentially conflict with our business model.

Think of it this way, Sears runs an ad in your town and spends thousands of dollars to bring in customers, and what do you do, you walk in and start handing out fliers to your store advertising the same product.

We are a business and you did exactly that, you walked in and advertised your wares, this is known as very rude in American culture.

For the same reason what you propose goes against the very core of our beliefs toward free trade, the less gov interference, the better.
Which is why I gave you the Lemonade analogy, in hopes that you might get a better understanding of the effects of to much gov intervention on Private business.

I've not been trying to ridicule you, I've been trying to understand you.
We just have different rules of social behavior in the U.S. when it comes to business.
We are raised to believe gov is not the answer, they are the problem, I have to assume you were raised in an opposite manner.

WalkTall, if you're unable to fault the message, fault the messenger?

I'm aware of the Import Certificate concept being introduced into the U.S. by USA citizens. I'm unaware of any other claim of origin.  The IC concept maybe a purely USA idea.
It's not pure free trade but its certainly pure free competitive enterprise.   It grants no discretion of policy to any entity including our federal government.
      
You are aware the democracy practiced in New England villages was also practiced among the Iroquois Indian nation before the white men came to our shores?  There were democratic cities in Greece prior to the birth of Christ.

Some foreign ideas are worthy of consideration.  We mapped out our nation using trigonometry.  We might not have been able to travel in space without calculus.  Our history's' are series of achievements due to people standing upon the shoulders of others' prior accomplishments.  If CPF members should object to foreign ideas, we'd be objecting to a great many things,

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 20, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
WalkTall, if you're unable to fault the message, fault the messenger?

I'm aware of the Import Certificate concept being introduced into the U.S. by USA citizens. I'm unaware of any other claim of origin.  The IC concept maybe a purely USA idea.
It's not pure free trade but its certainly pure free competitive enterprise.   It grants no discretion of policy to any entity including our federal government.
      
You are aware the democracy practiced in New England villages was also practiced among the Iroquois Indian nation before the white men came to our shores?  There were democratic cities in Greece prior to the birth of Christ.

Some foreign ideas are worthy of consideration.  We mapped out our nation using trigonometry.  We might not have been able to travel in space without calculus.  Our history's' are series of achievements due to people standing upon the shoulders of others' prior accomplishments.  If CPF members should object to foreign ideas, we'd be objecting to a great many things,

Respectfully, Supposn

There isn't a lot to learn from other countries, except for their history of how not to end up like them.  We have the best health care system, best military, best economic system, and the smartest and most driven people in the world.  Hussein need to get out of office before we are just a mediocre, regular country.

Quote from: Supposn on April 20, 2012, 10:01:50 PM

WalkTall, if you're unable to fault the message, fault the messenger?

Respectfully, Supposn

I find your message is full of Bull Shit!  A tax is a tax no matter how you colored it.  But that just my way of thinking.  At my age I have seen snake oil sold more than one way.  The government need to live within a budget, like people at home should also be doing.   

When business start having problems they start cutting cost.   When government start having problems they look for a new way of taxing.  Or should I say stealing!

walkstall,,,little w little t.  Unlike the government, I am just a little person.  But I pay cash for everything.   Do I need ¾ the thing I have?  NO  But it all payed for, can you or the government say the samething. 

This irritating, deliberately oblivious troll has been told more than once to STOP using that misspelled name, and hasn't. Set phasers to ridicule.

Quote from: Solar on April 16, 2012, 01:36:43 PMYou have yet to tell me what your country of origin is.

Solar, I've encountered this group, (ConservativePoliticalForum.Com), when googling "political forum online".

I became a member of this group but I'm no longer able to receive any notifications sent to the Email account I use for all of my online groups' account activity.

I was forced to change one of my E-mail addresses because Hotmail.Com no longer supports links between a person's multiple accounts.  I cannot log into one of my accounts and I've endeavored to change my Email address as I become aware of my membership to various groups.
I've logged into this group but I'm unable to discover how to change my Email address for receiving this group's notification messages of posts to the topics I follow.

I was born in the borough of the Bronx, within New York City.  I was educated in the USA and served 4 years in the USA Air Force, (1955-1959).  I now reside near Fort Lee, NJ that's the location of the NJ side of the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River between NY City and NJ.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on August 14, 2013, 10:08:43 PM
Solar, I've encountered this group, (ConservativePoliticalForum.Com), when googling "political forum online".

I became a member of this group but I'm no longer able to receive any notifications sent to the Email account I use for all of my online groups' account activity.

I was forced to change one of my E-mail addresses because Hotmail.Com no longer supports links between a person's multiple accounts.  I cannot log into one of my accounts and I've endeavored to change my Email address as I become aware of my membership to various groups.
I've logged into this group but I'm unable to discover how to change my Email address for receiving this group's notification messages of posts to the topics I follow.

I was born in the borough of the Bronx, within New York City.  I was educated in the USA and served 4 years in the USA Air Force, (1955-1959).  I now reside near Fort Lee, NJ that's the location of the NJ side of the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River between NY City and NJ.

Respectfully, Supposn

You'll need to update me as to your point, it's been months since this topic was broached.
I don't know if you're resurrecting the topic, or that you're having problems logging in?

Quote from: Supposn on April 10, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
West2004, trade deficits are nations' imports of goods and service products exceeding the values of their exports.  A trade deficit indicates the nation produced less than otherwise; (otherwise being if there had been no trade deficit).  Dollars are the chips that indicate who won or lost; at stake are jobs, the extent they're better paying jobs, and those lost jobs affect upon the median wage.

The problem is that the "nation" does not import or export, nor does it buy or sell.

These actions are done by private individuals. And every exchange of goods, in any direction, is balanced by a corresponding money payment.

So the adding up of goods in and money out, for the "national economy" is all rather meaningless.

For there is no 'national economic unit.' There is only individual private actors and firms and for them the exchange leaves no surplus or deficit.

Thus adding up these exchanges to find some net surplus or net deficit is rather meaningless. Such a metric is a hold over from the days of mercantilist thought.

David Hume more or less destroyed the idea of the necessity of trade policy with his 'specie-flow mechanism." Though that sort of a becomes a moot point in the days of unrestrained fiat money and central bank monetary expansion!

Import Certificates subsidize USA's exports.

In response to Supposn's quote,
"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".

Solar's response within message #50 was, "Made no sense at all".

Exporter's motivation would be to profit from the Import Certificates, (ICs) that would acquire (only if they requested their goods be assessed and agreed to pay the fees that defray entire direct federal expenditures due to this proposal.  That's an indirect but very effective subsidy of USA's exports.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 15, 2013, 08:03:32 AM
The problem is that the "nation" does not import or export, nor does it buy or sell.

These actions are done by private individuals. And every exchange of goods, in any direction, is balanced by a corresponding money payment. ...

Toward Liberty, I sit corrected because I don't stand while posting,

Referring to USA's trade deficit may imply our federal government's trade deficit while it is actually due to our aggregate population's behavior.
But that behavior is due to our aggregate population's response to the conditions resulting from our federal government's trade policies.

If we should change our trade policy, it changes the consequences of our policy and that would impel our population to behave differently.  I'm among those that support this species of an Import Certificate policy that is superior to our currently seeking a policy of pure free trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

In response to Supposn's writing:
"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".


Solar's response within message #50 was,"No it is not! The taxes go directly to the Government, the Gov will assess the value, therefore it is Gov controlled"!

This policy grants no entity any policy discretion; (assessment of goods approximate values at USA ports and expressed in USA dollars would be dependent upon annually updated guide lines and is a technical rather than a policy determination).
Federal fees imposed upon USA exporters requesting that their goods be assessed are determined by annually updated regulations guided by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office.  The critical price is the open global market value of Import Certificates per dollar of assessed values of goods being imported into the USA.

The global values of ICs are completely determined by the free global market and are beyond manipulation of any entity.  It is that price that determines the additional price of imported goods within USA's domestic markets and the extent of ICs support of USA's exported goods.

I do not quibble with Solar describing the global values of ICs, (i.e. the additional costs of direct expenditures due to this proposal) as a tax upon USA purchasers and users of imported goods; that's so.  They are the cause of our trade deficit of goods detriment to our nation's GDP and median wage; they should pay for its remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on August 15, 2013, 05:44:07 PM
In response to Supposn's writing:
"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".


Solar's response within message #50 was,"No it is not! The taxes go directly to the Government, the Gov will assess the value, therefore it is Gov controlled"!

This policy grants no entity any policy discretion; (assessment of goods approximate values at USA ports and expressed in USA dollars would be dependent upon annually updated guide lines and is a technical rather than a policy determination).
Federal fees imposed upon USA exporters requesting that their goods be assessed are determined by annually updated regulations guided by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office.  The critical price is the open global market value of Import Certificates per dollar of assessed values of goods being imported into the USA.

The global values of ICs are completely determined by the free global market and are beyond manipulation of any entity.  It is that price that determines the additional price of imported goods within USA's domestic markets and the extent of ICs support of USA's exported goods.

I do not quibble with Solar describing the global values of ICs, (i.e. the additional costs of direct expenditures due to this proposal) as a tax upon USA purchasers and users of imported goods; that's so.  They are the cause of our trade deficit of goods detriment to our nation's GDP and median wage; they should pay for its remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

And what makes you think other countries won't retaliate in kind?
Also, if I follow you correctly, your plan is nothing more than a carbon trading scheme.

In response to Supposn's writing: "The federal government is granted no right to favor or discriminate between foreign nations".

Solar's response within message #50 was, "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"?

We may exercise our unilateral determination of goods and the qualifying conditions they are permitted to enter our sovereign nation.

This proposal does not choose winners or losers among foreign nations, or (other than the excluding the values of minerals integral to goods that have been legally and explicitly described as precious or scarce), it does not choose among any industries' goods.

If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, it is of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA's borders.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There have been many instances of our federal government altruistically failing to defend the interests of USA enterprises despite any trade agreements' mention of participants' entitlement to all considerations among most favored (foreign) nations.  Those attempting to import USA goods into some nations have been subject to lesser consideration than our other competing foreign exporting nations'.

Under this proposed USA Import Certificate policy, even if our federal government continues to be ineffective, entities perpetrating mischief undermining USA's goods exporting, would do much less harm to the USA and much more harm to themselves, (because this proposal denies even the federal government of any discretion with regard to this policy.

The federal government has on occasions traded away the interests of USA commercial enterprises to satisfy the goals of other government agencies.  This is much less likely to occur under an IC trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on August 15, 2013, 07:01:54 PM
In response to Supposn's writing: "The federal government is granted no right to favor or discriminate between foreign nations".

Solar's response within message #50 was, "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"?

We may exercise our unilateral determination of goods and the qualifying conditions they are permitted to enter our sovereign nation.

This proposal does not choose winners or losers among foreign nations, or (other than the excluding the values of minerals integral to goods that have been legally and explicitly described as precious or scarce), it does not choose among any industries' goods.

If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, it is of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA's borders.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There have been many instances of our federal government altruistically failing to defend the interests of USA enterprises despite any trade agreements' mention of participants' entitlement to all considerations among most favored (foreign) nations.  Those attempting to import USA goods into some nations have been subject to lesser consideration than our other competing foreign exporting nations'.

Under this proposed USA Import Certificate policy, even if our federal government continues to be ineffective, entities perpetrating mischief undermining USA's goods exporting, would do much less harm to the USA and much more harm to themselves, (because this proposal denies even the federal government of any discretion with regard to this policy.

The federal government has on occasions traded away the interests of USA commercial enterprises to satisfy the goals of other government agencies.  This is much less likely to occur under an IC trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Please use the quote function, it's really hard trying to figure out your posts.
If you need help, just ask.

But your proposal neglects parts needed my American manufacturers, many COs here import parts from around the world they then sell these finished products to other Mkts.
Do you have any idea what repercussions this would have on a struggling business, from layoffs, to bankruptcy?

How about we let the mkt figure it out, and get govt out of the way altogether?

Quote from: Solar on April 16, 2012, 01:36:43 PMYou assume their entire product will be made from all US parts.
Thats living in a Utopian world.Which is discriminatory in nature, and thats exactly how our trading partners will view it, and reciprocate in kind. ...

Solar, foreign components and materials, (excluding the values of explicitly listed precious or scarce mineral materials within an import shipment or integral to the products within an import shipment) will require the surrender of Import Certificates to permit those goods to enter the USA.  The entire value of goods leaving the USA, (excluding the value of the afore mentioned precious or scarce or mineral materials), will be eligible to be assessed if the exporter chooses to do so. 

It's that simple.  Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on August 15, 2013, 04:55:37 PM
Toward Liberty, I sit corrected because I don't stand while posting,

Referring to USA's trade deficit may imply our federal government's trade deficit while it is actually due to our aggregate population's behavior.
But that behavior is due to our aggregate population's response to the conditions resulting from our federal government's trade policies.

If we should change our trade policy, it changes the consequences of our policy and that would impel our population to behave differently.  I'm among those that support this species of an Import Certificate policy that is superior to our currently seeking a policy of pure free trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

It is nice to have such a respectful and civil debate.

The point I want to make is that there is no deficit for every exchange is cleared with a money payment. There are no firms waiting around to be made whole once the trade deficit is paid.

Now it is true that the actions of people on the market determine the flow of goods and money around the world. No disagreement there. And likewise I agree that policies can impact these trade flows.

For example, being the printer of the world's reserve currency enables the home country to import at a discount, by exporting inflation.

And of course trade policy has a very real effects on the pattern of exchange no less.

The government can "nudge" people's behavior. Though how people will react and adjust in order to maximize in the face of new constraints is typically unpredictable and often time counter productive from the point of view of the planner.

I would not characterize current policy as an example of pure free trade. There are literally thousands of pages of regulations, agreements, penalties, and examples of protection in our "free trade" policy. I would even go so far as to say free trade is about as real as the free market.

There is a real problem in this country related to production, middle class jobs, real wages and future economic growth. Many people tie this problem back to cheap labor, foreign competition and trade. The "race to the bottom" is what they call it. I know we are all familiar with this concept.

For my money I see another explanation for the stagnation of sustainable economic growth. The explanation I would point to turns on low interest rates and their effect on risk taking and profit seeking. High interests rates necessitate a higher level of expected profitability for an investment to be viable. So a greater degree of risk and reward is necessary. These are your longer term, capital intensive, highly innovative productive investments. In contrast, a low rate of interest, say 1%, enables investment in short term, low risk and low profit, carry trades. The key here is that borrowing at 1% and lending around the world at 4% leaves a nice 3% spread which is relatively risk free.

The take away is that monetary manipulations and cheap credit incentivize short term carry trades at the expense of the more profitable and risky productive investments- the kind which actually employ people in the production of something.

The transition in the economy away from production and toward financial services has been rather pronounced since the 1970s. And during this same period real wages have been stagnant, manufacturing is in decline and the concentration of wealth has increased noticeably, revealing a big chasm between the elite and the rest of us.

So if the problem with the economy is rooted in money and credit, rather than international trade, then the policy of the OP may very well leave the underlying problem untouched- and who knows what extra inefficiencies it will create.

Quote from: Supposn on August 15, 2013, 08:08:55 PM
Solar, foreign components and materials, (excluding the values of explicitly listed precious or scarce mineral materials within an import shipment or integral to the products within an import shipment) will require the surrender of Import Certificates to permit those goods to enter the USA.  The entire value of goods leaving the USA, (excluding the value of the afore mentioned precious or scarce or mineral materials), will be eligible to be assessed if the exporter chooses to do so. 

It's that simple.  Respectfully, Supposn

Why? Why do we need any form of tariff/tax?
This is nothing but the Govt meddling in free trade, why is it necessary? That is the question you have yet to understand.

Quote from: Solar on August 15, 2013, 06:35:07 PM
And what makes you think other countries won't retaliate in kind?
Also, if I follow you correctly, your plan is nothing more than a carbon trading scheme.

Solar, regarding retalliation, refer to message #133.

[I'm opposed to our seeking "pure" free global trade.  Pure free trade (more than otherwise) reduces our GDP.  Pure free trade reduction of GDP (disproportional to other factors that may be reducing our GDP), reduces our numbers of jobs and median wage.  Thus it disproportionally affects our nation's lowest income families.
After WW2, the USA enacted the Marshall plan that was funded by our nation's general federal budget; it was not disproportionally funded by our nation's poor.  If the U.S. Congress should determines we should act in an altruistic manner, it should be similarly funded from our general government revenues].

You correctly compare this proposal's concept to that of a "carbon tax", but that's another topic.   

I have more questions than answers regarding it.  If you know more than I do, please open and post a seperate discussion regarding the "carbon tax".

I wonder how it is proposed we identify all or a significant proportion of our nation's produces of carbon pollution, the expense and the equitable manner of measuring the extent of each polluter's contribution to the detriment of our environment and of course the net economic benefit /cost  of such laws?

The concept of a "carbon tax" is to preserve and improve the long term national and possibly global condition of our environment.  Proponents claim that the long term benefits are justified by the inevitable cost of our not enacting some effective protective measures.  There's also the question as to what extent that carbon tax would be a unilateral act or be in participation with some similar agreed to international acts and agreements?

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar & Toward Liberty, this discussion thread has extended to reach 138 messages thus far partially due to our mingling two related but separate topics: (1) trade deficits affect upon our number of jobs and their median wage, (2) the economic affect of a proposed trade policy modification, a species of Import Certificate's policy.

I apparently mistakenly believed that I had previously opened a discussion thread regarding trade deficits affect upon our number of jobs and their median wage.  I've now (much too late), rectified that omission.
Refer to the thread entitled "Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs"

If you do not accept the diagnoses or the explanation of the illness, there's no point go on to discussing a remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on August 16, 2013, 09:52:10 AM
Solar, regarding retalliation, refer to message #133.

[I'm opposed to our seeking "pure" free global trade.  Pure free trade (more than otherwise) reduces our GDP.  Pure free trade reduction of GDP (disproportional to other factors that may be reducing our GDP), reduces our numbers of jobs and median wage.  Thus it disproportionally affects our nation's lowest income families.
After WW2, the USA enacted the Marshall plan that was funded by our nation's general federal budget; it was not disproportionally funded by our nation's poor.  If the U.S. Congress should determines we should act in an altruistic manner, it should be similarly funded from our general government revenues].

You correctly compare this proposal's concept to that of a "carbon tax", but that's another topic.   

I have more questions than answers regarding it.  If you know more than I do, please open and post a seperate discussion regarding the "carbon tax".

I wonder how it is proposed we identify all or a significant proportion of our nation's produces of carbon pollution, the expense and the equitable manner of measuring the extent of each polluter's contribution to the detriment of our environment and of course the net economic benefit /cost  of such laws?

The concept of a "carbon tax" is to preserve and improve the long term national and possibly global condition of our environment.  Proponents claim that the long term benefits are justified by the inevitable cost of our not enacting some effective protective measures.  There's also the question as to what extent that carbon tax would be a unilateral act or be in participation with some similar agreed to international acts and agreements?

Respectfully, Supposn

The Marshal plan was a complete socialist failure, referring to it otherwise is , well... is short of ignorant, and I'm not being insulting, I used ignorant in it's true meaning, uninformed.

If you'd like to understand Carbon credits, look no further than your typical Pyramid scheme.

Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2013, 08:39:47 PM
The Marshal plan was a complete socialist failure, referring to it otherwise is , well... is short of ignorant, and I'm not being insulting, I used ignorant in it's true meaning, uninformed. ...

Solar, considering the state of the world and our own national interests after World War Two, its often argued if USA's enactment of the Marshall Plan was a partially or fully altruistic act or if wasn't in our nation's better long term strategic long term diplomatic, and/or economic and/or military better interests that we enacted the Marshall Plan.

With the advantage of hindsight, many argue that the world in general and the USA in particular would now be in a much lesser desirable condition and situation if we hadn't enacted something similar to the Marshall Plan.

Many of those who are among our nation's most politically conservative would agree that the Marshall Plan was critical to the containment of the Soviet Union and although they would argue it could have been accomplished in a financially more prudent manner, it did serve our humane and our economic purposes.

With regard to humanity, there are many liberals that believe it better served those that had more and neglected or did little for those that had less.  They would also argue that U.S. policy did not serve our military interest in the best manner because precisely because we failed to appreciate that when nation's short change their own populations, their economic weakness affects their military capabilities and they are less dependable diplomatic and military allies.

Henry Ford was wrong; history is not bunk.  We should carefully consider the consequences of the Marshall plan.

///////////////////////////////////////////////
   This is germane to consideration of historic, more recent and current Middle Eastern events.  Our support of the Shah of Iran has and continues to cost us dearly in both wealth and blood.  We try to placate everyone.  If there should ever be peace between Israel and the Arab nations, each party will well remember the military aid, training and counsel the USA provided to their nation's enemies.  Whatever will occur in the Middle East is not likely to please us; we should choose the least undesirable alternatives.


It is likely we'll be damned regardless of what we have done or will do in the Middle East.
This is the essence of determining comparative advantage when no available alternative is satisfactory; if we cannot succeed, we should consider what's the least harmful among our available alternatives.

/////////////////////////////////////////////

[Bear in mind this concept of comparative advantage when all alternatives are unsatisfatory.  This is too the case for pure free trade in comparison to the proposed policy of transferable Import Certificates.

Within a pure free trade environment, all U.S. enterprises have access to cheaper foreign goods.  Their determination of comparative advantage is not an absolute or competitive advantage.  But they do suffer a competitive penalty if they do not choose their best comparative advantage.
To the extent that an enterprise's choice increases the trade deficit, their choice contributes to the indirect reduction of the nation's GDP and is of some detriment to the nation's job numbers and median wage; (i.e. it's net economically  detrimental to the nation).

In such cases as I just described, there is no competitive or absolute advantage.  The choice of comparative advantage is to avoid the competitive penalty by purchasing the lesser cost products available.

The proposed Import Certificate policy changes the commercial environment of USA's global trade.  There can be no aggregate USA trade deficit of applicable goods and thus an enterprise's choice of what they consider to be to their comparative advantage will not be economically detrimental to the nation's economy].

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2013, 08:39:47 PM...
If you'd like to understand Carbon credits, look no further than your typical Pyramid scheme.

Solar, regarding to carbon tax, refer to post #140 where I wrote what little I believe to know of it.
I also wrote of having more questions than answers regarding it and suggested if you know more than I do, please open and post a separate discussion regarding the "carbon tax".

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on August 19, 2013, 10:18:48 AM
Solar, considering the state of the world and our own national interests after World War Two, its often argued if USA's enactment of the Marshall Plan was a partially or fully altruistic act or if wasn't in our nation's better long term strategic long term diplomatic, and/or economic and/or military better interests that we enacted the Marshall Plan.

With the advantage of hindsight, many argue that the world in general and the USA in particular would now be in a much lesser desirable condition and situation if we hadn't enacted something similar to the Marshall Plan.

Many of those who are among our nation's most politically conservative would agree that the Marshall Plan was critical to the containment of the Soviet Union and although they would argue it could have been accomplished in a financially more prudent manner, it did serve our humane and our economic purposes.

With regard to humanity, there are many liberals that believe it better served those that had more and neglected or did little for those that had less.  They would also argue that U.S. policy did not serve our military interest in the best manner because precisely because we failed to appreciate that when nation's short change their own populations, their economic weakness affects their military capabilities and they are less dependable diplomatic and military allies.

Henry Ford was wrong; history is not bunk.  We should carefully consider the consequences of the Marshall plan.

///////////////////////////////////////////////
   This is germane to consideration of historic, more recent and current Middle Eastern events.  Our support of the Shah of Iran has and continues to cost us dearly in both wealth and blood.  We try to placate everyone.  If there should ever be peace between Israel and the Arab nations, each party will well remember the military aid, training and counsel the USA provided to their nation's enemies.  Whatever will occur in the Middle East is not likely to please us; we should choose the least undesirable alternatives.


It is likely we'll be damned regardless of what we have done or will do in the Middle East.
This is the essence of determining comparative advantage when no available alternative is satisfactory; if we cannot succeed, we should consider what's the least harmful among our available alternatives.

/////////////////////////////////////////////

[Bear in mind this concept of comparative advantage when all alternatives are unsatisfatory.  This is too the case for pure free trade in comparison to the proposed policy of transferable Import Certificates.

Within a pure free trade environment, all U.S. enterprises have access to cheaper foreign goods.  Their determination of comparative advantage is not an absolute or competitive advantage.  But they do suffer a competitive penalty if they do not choose their best comparative advantage.
To the extent that an enterprise's choice increases the trade deficit, their choice contributes to the indirect reduction of the nation's GDP and is of some detriment to the nation's job numbers and median wage; (i.e. it's net economically  detrimental to the nation).

In such cases as I just described, there is no competitive or absolute advantage.  The choice of comparative advantage is to avoid the competitive penalty by purchasing the lesser cost products available.

The proposed Import Certificate policy changes the commercial environment of USA's global trade.  There can be no aggregate USA trade deficit of applicable goods and thus an enterprise's choice of what they consider to be to their comparative advantage will not be economically detrimental to the nation's economy].

Respectfully, Supposn

This might give you a different understanding of the Marshal plan.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=120 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=120)

Quote from: Supposn on August 19, 2013, 10:18:48 AM
[Bear in mind this concept of comparative advantage when all alternatives are unsatisfatory.  This is too the case for pure free trade in comparison to the proposed policy of transferable Import Certificates.

Within a pure free trade environment, all U.S. enterprises have access to cheaper foreign goods.  Their determination of comparative advantage is not an absolute or competitive advantage.  But they do suffer a competitive penalty if they do not choose their best comparative advantage.
To the extent that an enterprise's choice increases the trade deficit, their choice contributes to the indirect reduction of the nation's GDP and is of some detriment to the nation's job numbers and median wage; (i.e. it's net economically  detrimental to the nation).

In such cases as I just described, there is no competitive or absolute advantage.  The choice of comparative advantage is to avoid the competitive penalty by purchasing the lesser cost products available.

The proposed Import Certificate policy changes the commercial environment of USA's global trade.  There can be no aggregate USA trade deficit of applicable goods and thus an enterprise's choice of what they consider to be to their comparative advantage will not be economically detrimental to the nation's economy].

Respectfully, Supposn

Everyone suffers a competitive penalty if they do not choose their "comparative advantage." This is true of firms as well as of individuals.

Luckily for the economy investment flows out of unprofitable production processes. So the worry that a firm will choose to invest in a line of production that offers inferior comparative advantages is sort of a moot point in a world where profits and losses steer investment and expansion.

And what about the point that the "national" economy is a statistical invention? That all trade is between firms and individuals? And that no "trade deficit" exists in the real economy

What about the argument that monetary policy, ZIRP and credit expansion have more to do with undermining middle class jobs, real wages and sustainable economic growth?

Toward liberty, what is to the advantage of individual persons or enterprises may not be to the net advantage of our society.

Regardless of how advantageous it may be to raise pigs on your property, zoning laws may protect your neighbor from such an eventuality.  You cannot obtain a certificate of occupancy if the building erected on your property is not in compliance with building codes.  There are sanitation laws, limits of persons occupying a building, restrictions and prohibitions of certain commercial practices and many other legally restrictive laws and regulations.

Pure free trade is not to commercial enterprises' absolute or competitive advantage.

Competitive advantage is the bottom line only advantage that's of concern to a commercial enterprise.  Within our present trade policies, commercial enterprises operating within the USA would penalize themselves if they purchased more expensive USA products rather than similar products imported from low wage nations.
USA wage earning  families would penalize themselves if they did not make similar choices but in aggregate their benefits due to cheaper imports do not compensate them for our trade deficit's detrimental effects upon our numbers of jobs and median wage.

The contention is a transferable Import Certificate proposal is economically superior to a national policy of pure global free trade.
Within that policy individuals and enterprises are expected to continue behaving in what they believe to be in their own best interests but the change of our laws will have changed what is to their best interests and also increased our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 20, 2013, 05:14:18 AM... And what about the point that the "national" economy is a statistical invention? That all trade is between firms and individuals? And that no "trade deficit" exists in the real economy.

Toward liberty, the GDP and the trade deficits are statistics reporting the net consequences of aggregate transactions that actually occurred.  Due to that annual trade deficit the nation's was immediately affected.  The consequences of annual trade deficits are their nation's GDPs, numbers of jobs and median wages being less than otherwise.

If a trade deficit is due to the nation importing production supporting tools, equipment, or materials, it is possible for the nation to eventually recover some of what was lost or possibly derive a net gain from such production supporting imports; but that's not been the case in the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on August 20, 2013, 09:58:33 PM
Toward liberty, the GDP and the trade deficits are statistics reporting the net consequences of aggregate transactions that actually occurred.  Due to that annual trade deficit the nation's was immediately affected.  The consequences of annual trade deficits are their nation's GDPs, numbers of jobs and median wages being less than otherwise.

If a trade deficit is due to the nation importing production supporting tools, equipment, or materials, it is possible for the nation to eventually recover some of what was lost or possibly derive a net gain from such production supporting imports; but that's not been the case in the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

You give trade exchange way too much importance, and see Govt intervention as the cure, problem is, it was Govt that created the imbalance in the first place, and to expect it to fix it is pretty ignorant, to say the least and an experiment in insanity.

The free mkt has always found it's own equilibrium, just like business around the country, business keeps other businesses inline, if one starts charging too much for a product, others attract clientele looking for a better bargain.
But if we take your approach, the approach of Big Govt playing "protector of business", what do you suppose the free mkt will do in response?
They will go where they can get a better deal, leaving us high and dry and dead like a beach whale.

You have to realize, there are consequences to all actions, and trading partners will not react favorably no matter what.
Let free mkt find it's own equilibrium, and forget about Govt interference, we have a long history of Govt interference to learn from, and not one case points to success.

Quote from: Supposn on August 20, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
Toward liberty, what is to the advantage of individual persons or enterprises may not be to the net advantage of our society.

We can't measure "net advantage to society" for society is a group of individuals and their costs and benefits cannot be interpersonally compared.

What is to the advantage of society is to have a prosperous economy with a rising living standard. And the path to that outcome is found through free markets, free exchange, private property, sound money and the rule of law, not regulations, interventions and central plans.

If history demonstrates anything it is that the goals of the rulers and the goals of the people are hardly ever aligned.

Quote

Regardless of how advantageous it may be to raise pigs on your property, zoning laws may protect your neighbor from such an eventuality.  You cannot obtain a certificate of occupancy if the building erected on your property is not in compliance with building codes.  There are sanitation laws, limits of persons occupying a building, restrictions and prohibitions of certain commercial practices and many other legally restrictive laws and regulations.

No doubt.

And most of those regulations are mere tools of raising revenue or limiting competition for some special interest group.

Indeed government is nothing more than a means of seeking and attaining political rents.

Quote

Pure free trade is not to commercial enterprises' absolute or competitive advantage.

Competitive advantage is the bottom line only advantage that's of concern to a commercial enterprise.  Within our present trade policies, commercial enterprises operating within the USA would penalize themselves if they purchased more expensive USA products rather than similar products imported from low wage nations.

I believe it is the comparative advantage that firms look at, as do individuals, when deciding what and how to invest or produce.

With that said it is no doubt true that purchasing higher cost inputs will reduce one's comparative advantage in trade. This means that the particular comparative advantage we are discussing, in this particular line, is not profitable to produce using made in USA inputs. By the assumption of your argument, such a investment would need some subsidy or protection to make viable.

And if that is the case then the firm in question does not have a comparative advantage in the production of this good. Apparently they are at a disadvantage unless there is a subsidy involved.

So under these circumstances the firm should produce something else, in a line of production where they do have a natural comparative advantage.

Quote
USA wage earning  families would penalize themselves if they did not make similar choices but in aggregate their benefits due to cheaper imports do not compensate them for our trade deficit's detrimental effects upon our numbers of jobs and median wage.

Well I don't agree that the "trade deficit" (a measure that is meaningless is my view) has anything to do with the number of jobs or real wages.

I have made the argument in my original response to you that low interest rates distort investment choices toward the carry trade and away from real productive investment, like manufacturing. This is the reason why middle class jobs are disappearing and why real wages are flat.

Quote
The contention is a transferable Import Certificate proposal is economically superior to a national policy of pure global free trade.
Within that policy individuals and enterprises are expected to continue behaving in what they believe to be in their own best interests but the change of our laws will have changed what is to their best interests and also increased our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Well we know right away that real wages will fall because prices will rise when imports are restricted. That much is clear. From that we can deduce that income will fall and so will consumer demand. We also know that the proposal, like all political proposals, is going to involve some rent seeking favoritism. So some firms will get allowances to import certain cheap inputs and they will reap an unfair advantage in doing so. Other firms will be viable when they otherwise would fail on the market, given competition. So their profits and revenues will similarly be political rents.

Now whether or not this policy leads to more jobs is debatable. Some jobs will be lost as importers go out business. Other jobs will be created as new industries spring up where they couldn't compete before. So we can't say a priori what will happen to the number of jobs. But more important than the number of jobs is movement of real wages, and with higher costs from being forced to buy domestic ripple through the economy, a drop in real wages seems impossible to avoid.

I think you have the right goal and outcome in mind but are wrong about the causes of these problems. It is not trade or foreign competition that is the problem. Rather it is our system of money, central banking and credit expansion, coupled with a vast number of needless regulations, interventions and policies. And unless the underlying problems are dealt, middle class jobs and living standards are not coming back.

Quote from: Supposn on August 20, 2013, 09:58:33 PM
Toward liberty, the GDP and the trade deficits are statistics reporting the net consequences of aggregate transactions that actually occurred.  Due to that annual trade deficit the nation's was immediately affected.  The consequences of annual trade deficits are their nation's GDPs, numbers of jobs and median wages being less than otherwise.

I have a completely different take on the matter.

Let me see if I can explain it better.

Imagine a single individual who exports labor and imports food. In their case, a trade deficit is a real thing. It occurs when they import more food than they export labor. So we see that a "trade deficit," in the context of a single individual, is a coherent construct.

And it is also coherent for the firm. A firm has a trade deficit when their buying costs (their imports) overwhelm their selling receipts (their exports).

So firms and individuals can have trade deficits and trade surpluses.

But nations cannot.

The reason the individual and firm level trade deficit was meaningful is because both the individual and the firm buy and sell, as a single unit. So all that was needed was to add up costs and revenues in order to see if the magnitudes balanced.

This cannot be done rationally at the national level for trade is not occurring within a single national unit, whereby the flow of goods in and out can be balanced. It is occurring across separate units, some of which are exporters, and others importers. These firms do not conjoin their balance sheets, nor share costs and revenues. So we are not dealing with a single unit, whereby a balance can be struck between costs and revenues, or imports and exports.

All trade is balanced. Goods are exchanged for money. Both sides deem themselves better off than before.

A "national trade deficit" implies that exports have not been high enough to pay for imports.

And therein lies the crucial error I have been pointing to: exports don't pay for imports. To think they did is to imagine a single economic unit engaging in international trade.

In reality, some firms export and receive payment for their goods. This is their revenue to re-invest, maintain capital, cover expenses, pay labor, etc

Other firms import goods. Then they sell these goods for a profit and import more.

These trade flows are separate and distinct to the firm they are occurring in and aggregating them as if they occurred under one roof, while ignoring the flow of money which settles these exchanges, is to engage in meaningless statistical gameplay.

It would be like aggregating the expenses of Home Depot with the revenues of Chick Fil a and upon discovery of some "imbalance," argue that something must be done to solve this horrible state of affairs!

Quote
If a trade deficit is due to the nation importing production supporting tools, equipment, or materials, it is possible for the nation to eventually recover some of what was lost or possibly derive a net gain from such production supporting imports; but that's not been the case in the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

I would make the same argument not in regards to trade balances, but in regards to debt.

If public or private debt is used in the investment of some production plan, of capital expansion or some value enhancing process, then it is good debt. But when it is used to prop up consumption, living standards, inefficient bureaucracies or the privileges of some elite group, then it is bad.

Regarding the discussion of good and bad imports, I have to take issue with the ability of a 3rd party to make such judgements. We can say debt to finance consumption is a bad just merely based on simple mathematics- debts involve the repayment of principal plus interest and if the debt is not used in a productive way, the interest, let a lone the principle, will be difficult to produce. But in the case of imports, we are dealing purely with a decision on the part of consumers regarding what sorts of goods they wish to buy. Obviously importers merely import what consumer choices make profitable. And since such a choice reflects their specific subjective preferences, we cannot say anything one way or another about it, without making an arbitrary personal value judgement.

Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2013, 06:20:04 PM
This might give you a different understanding of the Marshal plan.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=120 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=120)

I just want to point out that even though the marshall plan was not a economical success it was somewhat a political success and lead to the formation EEA which is a huge success. The conditions that USA were to be given free access to both private economic sectors and government institutions were a good program to see which regimes in europe was under communist control. My country of Norway even though the economy was in shambles after the national socialists occupation with supply of necessities being nearly non existent as the market had not operated for 5 years the country had increased in capital because the germans built highways, airports, hydroelectric dams and ports, so there was no real need for the marshall plan but the labor party politicians of this time were staunch anti communist so they accepted the marshall plan to get better relations with the US. And the demand for social wellfare that the plan conditioned was perfect for the labor party too as it was part of their platform.

And the reason EEA is a huge success is because it forbids european countries from enacting the form of taxes/tariffs that supposn wants for the US and instead the EEA enables "the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital" which I myself take advantage of every month simply by ordering stuff from germany and driving across the border to sweden and picking it up.

And besides you have more economical fallacies in your plan in addition to the ones that has already been pointing out. Your main goal of this plan is to raise the median wage of american workers with a plan that will also raise consumer prices, don't you see the fallacy in that? And more importantly like Solar stated earlier this will hurt the most poor workers the most and reduce the standard of living for the poor even if GDP is raised.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 22, 2013, 12:39:33 AM
... And the reason EEA is a huge success is because it forbids european countries from enacting the form of taxes/tariffs that supposn wants for the US and instead the EEA enables "the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital" which I myself take advantage of every month simply by ordering stuff from germany and driving across the border to sweden and picking it up. ...

Economic competition between political jurisdictions.

Mountainshield, I found your pos #150 of interest and initiated a thread in the hope that you and others can further contribute more insight regarding the European common market.  Refer to:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/norway-and-the-european-common-market/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/norway-and-the-european-common-market/)


When I first read of proposals for the value added tax, (VAT) I recognized its advantages and I was not unaware of its better enabling seamless trade between nations.  The European Common Market became more feasible due to nation's acceptance of VAT.

I didn't believe that what was then a proposed concept for a superior sales tax administrating method would ever survive the political "sausage making process" and emerge reasonably intact.
Having lived to witness its success, I became motivated to profit from the example of history and continue to be a proponent of a transferable Import Certificate trade policy.

In order for the EU's common market and the European Economic Area to become a political reality, European nations had to first recognize their common interests and to some extent subordinate their national sovereignty to that of the nations' organization's pact.  You correctly state that the trade policy I advocate for MY NATION, (the USA) would not be tolerated among the national members of those European pacts.

Similarly USA's constitution requires to some extent that U.S. states subordinate their states' sovereignty to that of the U.S. federal government and we would not tolerate a state enacting interstate or international laws or regulations without the expressed agreement of our federal government.

In both cases it was recognized that despite whatever advantages or disadvantages may exist between each if those political organizations' participants, the interests of the participants are subordinated to that of the entire organization.

In Norway's case, your nation is not a member of the EU and common market because Norway (thus far) refuses to subordinate its sovereignty with regard to the agricultural and fisheries industries.  A distinct organization, the European economic Area was created to tolerate such exceptions for some nations.

In USA's case, we fought a terrible civil war because we wouldn't or couldn't tolerate compromising our economic and social differences to the extent that would be required.

In both cases it was recognized that inequalities, advantages and disadvantages can and often do exist between the participating jurisdictions and regardless of those inequalities, individual or groups of the organizations' participants are forbidden to seek unilateral remedies that affect all other participants.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 22, 2013, 12:39:33 AM
... And besides you have more economical fallacies in your plan in addition to the ones that has already been pointing out. Your main goal of this plan is to raise the median wage of american workers with a plan that will also raise consumer prices, don't you see the fallacy in that? And more importantly like Solar stated earlier this will hurt the most poor workers the most and reduce the standard of living for the poor even if GDP is raised.

Mountainshield, proponents of pure free trade cite competitive advantage as to bolster their case.  When all of the alternatives are unsatisfactory, the least objectionable choice is the choice of comparative advantage.  In such cases there is no absolute advantage and there may not be a competitive advantage.

The purchasing power of higher USA wages is reflected within the prices of USA products.  To that extent USA producers are at some competitive disadvantage to foreign lower wage produces.  We penalize ourselves if we purchase higher priced USA goods.  USA enterprises are at no competitive advantage if they purchase less expensive foreign goods because their competitors have similar purchasing opportunities.
Under a transferable Import Certificate policy, USA enterprises only advantage is that they would derive from our nation's increased GDP which will be reflected throughout our entire economy.

I am a populist and believe that rather than wealth trickling down, the economy derives greater and more sustainable benefits when our median has wage increased.   No increase of stock market prices or other financial indicators foretell a possibly sustainable economic benefit if the nation's median wage does not increase as well.

Although wage earning families benefit from less expensive foreign imports, it does not in aggregate compensate them for our trade deficit's detrimental effect upon our GDP which in turn reduces the numbers of USA jobs and our median wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/)

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 12:02:04 PM
OK, but why apply tariffs in order to lower the trade deficit and lower its impact on GDP to get them to some nominally important point, at the expense of economic growth and expansion?  The ends do not justify the means, and the stated means are nowhere near the most efficient means to the desired end.

West 2004, other than requiring importers to surrender transferable Import Certificates with face values covering the assessed values of their goods entering the USA, (which are then cancelled), there are no mandates upon any entrepreneur.  (Surrendered ICs are cancelled).  It is not pure free trade but it is pure free enterprise.
I'm unaware of a superior proposed or existing national trade policy for a nation suffering chronic annual trade deficits.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nation's GDP.
Refer to the first two posts of the thread,
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/)
and
the remainder of the paragraphs entitled "Trade balances' affects upon their nation's GDP" within the Wikipedia article "Balance of trade". 


West 2004, this proposal's purpose is to eliminate USA's entire annual trade deficit of goods assessed values while serving as an indirect but effective subsidy of our exported goods.  It would increase our total of aggregate imports plus exports.  Its entire direct net costs would be entirely paid by USA's final purchasers and users of imported goods.
That would bolsters rather than reduce USA's economic growth and expansion.


The policy ceases to tolerate USA's trade deficits of goods that have been occurring every year in excess of our last half century.  Due to this unilateral market driven policy would bolster rather than reduce our economic growth and expansion.


This would be a unilateral market driven policy; (U.S. Custom inspectors' determination of goods value in U.S. dollars at U.S. ports are technical rather than a policy determinations).  By comparison it is far superior to our current global trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Comparison of tariffs and transferable Import Certificates.

West2004, I'm addressing this response to you because yours was the first of many such comparisons and then not fully considering their differences.  They are not differences without distinction.

Although transferable Import certificates can be purchased on an open market, they are only originally issued to exporters of USA goods dependent upon the assessed values of those goods.

Money alone can enable imported goods to enter a tariff nation.  Importing goods into an IC nation requires that someone had to first export USA goods of equal assessed values.

Both tariff and IC direct net policies costs would be entirely paid by USA's final purchasers and users of imported products.  Tariffs serve as a source of government tax revenue.  Import Certificates behave as an indirect but effective subsidy of exports which I consider to be of greater economic benefit to our nation.

While tariffs would reduce our nation's global trade, ICs would increase the aggregate total of our imports plus exports; but the annual assessed values of our imports will not exceed that of our exports.

Unlike tariffs, regardless of how low the global open market price of ICs should fall, the assessed values of our imports cannot exceed our exports.
Tariffs cannot do this unless the tariff rate is set so high as to practically eliminate almost all importing.  We can enjoy cheaper foreign goods but we cannot afford the economic consequences of the absolute cheapest priced imports provided by pure unrestricted free global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar, I never wrote or implied "we need another branch of the Gov"or we would "monitor what parts need your tax placed upon them".  How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You wrote "Dorgan and Feingold both said: (Both huge libs by the way)
"For oil, the phase-in period would be 10 years, to give the economy time to find and develop alternative energy supplies" and "In order to balance the budget in your ten year time span through taxation, it would cost the end consumer trillions yearly, fuel alone would double in price".
                  What's the drastic connection you perceive between this trade proposal and fuel?  Proportionally there would be a much greater difference between the prices of imported ladies dresses than the increase upon fuel prices.  What proposal are you reading?

You wrote "Hussein tried the alternative BS and it was a complete failure".  I'm not aware of anything similar to this ever had been enacted anywhere or at anytime.  You have different information?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 01:56:59 PM
GDP is nothing more than one measure, out of almost countless measures, of certain aspects of our economy.  It is not the be all end all single factor in determining health and quality of an economy.

West2004, gross domestic product per capita relative to the median wage's is among if not the very most descriptive and available gauges of a nation's extent of income distribution.  If the figures are adjusted to account for the dollar's current purchasing power, that ratio's an excellent gauge of the middle incomes standard of living changes over the durration of years and of its comparison to other nation's of living.

A nation's financial indicators such as stock market indicators can be high but if the median wage's purchasing power's haven't increased, the stock market indicators are a false description of the nation economic condition and those financial indicators will not be sustainable.  There can be no sustainable improvement of a nation's economy unless it's reflected within the median wage's purchasing power.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: west2004 on April 10, 2012, 01:56:59 PM... In the sense that you are describing, nations are not buying, selling, producing, or consuming these products.icient application of capital. ...

West2004, what I'm describing is almost no economic difference between similar domestic and imported products when they reach USA's domestic market places.

The differences all occurred during production and shipping of imported products .The costs of promoting, distributing, repairing, and servicing those similar products are similar.

The repairman that works on a domestic or foreign car receives the same hourly wage.  The Dry cleaner doesn't have two sets of prices for domestic and imported clothing items.  The trucker charges per mile or per pound regardless of where the item entered the USA market.

There is an economic difference between cars that require imported rather than domestic replacement parts.  Otherwise economically similar products provide similar benefits to our nation.  The economic differences between a foreign or domestic vehicle after they've entered the USA market places are the differences between foreign or domestic parts.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why in the Hell do you take so damn long to respond? That is simply rude and no longer warrants my attention.

Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 05:35:29 AM
Why in the Hell do you take so damn long to respond? That is simply rude and no longer warrants my attention.

Solar,
(A)    CPF doesn't send Email notices when there's a post on the threads members follow or I haven't been able to find how to enable it within the group's site.

(B)   Hotmail no longer supports linked Email addresses.  The address I used for all internet group activities was linked to another address.  I no longer am able to reach that address and had to abandon it.  The service provider, MSN, and all other resources I tried were of no help.  I'm still trying to learn which other groups I was registered within.  I haven't yet found them all.  I've been searching for many weeks if not months.

(C)     There are now over a 150 posts just on this one thread.  I'm going through them but it's impossible for me to give a more considered reply to all of them.  I seem to perceive that the earlier posts are more germane and if I can reply to some of those then that will better explain the issues discussed within later posts.

(D)   Similar to most other people, this is not my entire life.  I suppose you too have responsibilities and commitments that must be met before you can sit down and post on the internet.

Respectfully to you and all other members, Supposn

Quote from: mdgiles on April 10, 2012, 12:45:19 PM
And a tariff by any other name is what exactly? What you're suggesting is autarky; a policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports. That might have worked before the era of international trade; but economic isolationism, is going to work very well these days. Not to mention that if other countries follow suit, how exactly is that supposed to help our economy? And of course their are firms whose business is strictly importing, just as their are firms that are strictly exporters; so how will that work - besides adding another layer of government bureaucracy.

MD Giles, although you disagree, transferable Import Certificates significantly differ from tariffs; refer to reply #154 of this thread.

I'm not a proponent of "autarky; a policy of national self-sufficiency "  (i.e. commercial  isolationism,  but to the extent that's feasible I do  prefer our nation to be less rather than more vulnerable to any other single or coalitions of nations using commerce to gain political leverage against us.

[Too often I've heard opponents of this trade proposal suggest that we MUST thread more softly because China's a major holder of USA debts.
If I believed that's a valid concern I'd respond that if this proposal was not the most superior trade policy we could adopt, we would be impelled to adopt it to regain the political independence that these opponents claim we have lost.  But I don't believe we're subordinate to China and act accordingly].

This proposal's purpose is to eliminate USA's entire annual trade deficit of goods assessed values while serving as an indirect but effective subsidy of our exported goods. It would increase our total of aggregate imports plus exports. Its entire direct net costs would be entirely paid by USA's final purchasers and users of imported goods.
That would bolsters rather than reduce USA's economic growth and expansion.

If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, this proposal is not of disadvantage to ANY USA industry.  To directly answer your question, the detriment to a U.S. enterprise that only deals with importing would be the possible loss of import volumes (which are particularly likely to occur when this poroposal begins to be enacted).  There nwould be no loss of profit margin because all of this proposals direct net expenses are passed onto USA purchasers and consumers of imprted goods.
The IC policy would be of advantage to any USA enterprise (regardless of ownership by U.S. or foreign investors), that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA's borders.

Because importers of goods require the transferable ICs to cover the assessed values of their goods entering the USA, surrendered ICs are cancelled, IC's are only issued to exporters of USA goods, and the proposal indirectly but effectively reduces the cost to foreign purchasers of USA goods, any nation that boycotts USA imports would be perpetrating more harm upon themselves rather than upon us.  Due to limiting USA's imports of goods to the assessed values of such USA exports, harm to us is effectively limited.

Adoption of this policy would be of absolutely no benefit to a nation that does not suffer annual trade deficits of goods.
Entities attempting to undermine the global trade of a nation's IC policies would learn that an IC nation is almost entirely immune to such mischief.

USA has had the world's largest national trade deficit of goods for more than a half century,   If USA adopted an IC policy we would benefit due to that change; if every nation that could possibly benefit from such a policy also followed USA's lead, USA's would realize still greater benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn, why are you so willing to give the Govt power to control free mkt enterprise, tax business, as in penalize and allow govt to pick winners and losers in the free mkt?
Why is it so important you give so much power to Govt? Based on the Federalist papers, what you propose is unconstitutional, granted, not as bad as what it is now, but still illegal.The Dept of Commerce was a bastardization in the first place, but what it's grown into is nothing short of a prison to business with one tiny egress for escape.

What is so wrong with getting Govt out of the game of interference, it never used to interfere, just protect trade, and now you want to give the heavy hand of Govt one more weapon in it's arsenal to wield over the free mkt?

When did govt ever become a friend of business, all it does is tax, fee, and regulate and stifle.

Quote from: Solar on September 11, 2013, 04:56:42 AM
Supposn, why are you so willing to give the Govt power to control free mkt enterprise, tax business, as in penalize and allow govt to pick winners and losers in the free mkt?
Why is it so important you give so much power to Govt? Based on the Federalist papers, what you propose is unconstitutional, granted, not as bad as what it is now, but still illegal.The Dept of Commerce was a bastardization in the first place, but what it's grown into is nothing short of a prison to business with one tiny egress for escape.

What is so wrong with getting Govt out of the game of interference, it never used to interfere, just protect trade, and now you want to give the heavy hand of Govt one more weapon in it's arsenal to wield over the free mkt?

When did govt ever become a friend of business, all it does is tax, fee, and regulate and stifle.

Solar, you're incorrect; Import Certificates are CERTAINLY NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the concept is CERTAINLY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF USA ENTERPRISES but otherwise it CERTAINLY DOES NOT CHOOSE WINNER AND LOSERS among them.

I consider myself a populist and I do not mind if conservatives want to label me as liberal.  Because you and I disagree about pure free trade does not negate that I'm no less than you a proponent of free enterprise.
  I may be liberal but I'm not a Libertarian or an anarchist.  For further explanation and possibly a laugh, Refer to reply #5 of the thread:

Within law and politics there are no absolute and forever guarantees.
When I was a boy I never conceived USA preemptively attacking any other nation or torture would ever be our nation's acceptable and openly avowed policy for difficult prisoner interrogations; things do change.
(I do believe the evidence that Iran was responsible the gas attack is very creditable.  Obama is not "cherry picking" among military intelligence opinions).  If we fire into that Iran it would not be a pre-emptive strike).

As a boy I also believed my father to be wrong.  The U.S. economy would not suffer any net harm due to our granting the remainder of our globe complete unlimited access to our domestic markets.  We have since then endured annual trade deficits of goods each and every year in excess of a half century.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar, if the Import Certificate, (IC) proposal were reintroduced to the U.S. Senate with the suggested proposed modifications, (google Wikipedia's "Import Certificates"), the then current or future U.S. congresses will seek to modify it further and I assume their still more additionally proposed  modifications would, (more often than not) degrade the trade act's effective benefit to our nation.
But the species of an IC policy I'm among the proponents of does have some attributes you might not in principle oppose.

You oppose requiring all importers surrender ICs with face values the good they wish to bring into the USA; but that is an ENTITLEMENT of any entity legally acting as an importer and any enterprise or individual can certainly engage the services of importers.
There are no other mandates upon any entrepreneurs or enterprises within this proposal draft.

Exporter's goods are assed upon the exporter's request.  They could choose to have their goods shipped out of the USA without being assessed.

Exporters requesting assessments also agree to pay the assessment fees.  The proposal requires that those fees and any guidelines for assessing goods should be annually reviewed and updated.  The reviewing federal agency is directed to set the fees to defray all direct federal expenditures due to this Import Certificate trade policy.  They are specifically directed to refrain from those fees becoming a net source of government revenue.

Our nation can derive greater benefit due to ICs indirect subsidy of USA's exported goods rather than from permitting those fees to become a net revenue source.

You may not agree but I believe the determination of goods approximate value in U.S. dollars at U.S. ports are a technical rather than a policy determination.  The proposal grants government no discretion of policy.

The draft will include a list of precious or scarce minerals.  The assessment of goods shall be reduced by the assessment of any of those specific minerals integral to the goods or the production of the goods being assessed.  Other than that, there is no discrimination among assessment of goods. Nationality of producers or any classification of industries is inconsequential to the goods' assessed values.

All assessments are the approximate value at U.S. port, in U.S. dollars.  Currency exchange rates or producer's cost of manufacturing are not considered but assessors can consider additional value for goods custom produced to suit a particular individual or purchaser or user.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CHOOSING WINNERS AND/OR LOSERS.
This is not pure free trade but it's certainly pure free enterprise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 11, 2013, 04:56:42 AM...
... What is so wrong with getting Govt out of the game of interference, it never used to interfere, just protect trade, and now you want to give the heavy hand of Govt one more weapon in it's arsenal to wield over the free mkt?

When did govt ever become a friend of business, all it does is tax, fee, and regulate and stifle.

Refer to:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/government-regulations-have-purposes/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/government-regulations-have-purposes/)

Quote from: Supposn on September 11, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
Solar, if the Import Certificate, (IC) proposal were reintroduced to the U.S. Senate with the suggested proposed modifications, (google Wikipedia's "Import Certificates"), the then current or future U.S. congresses will seek to modify it further and I assume their still more additionally proposed  modifications would, (more often than not) degrade the trade act's effective benefit to our nation.
But the species of an IC policy I'm among the proponents of does have some attributes you might not in principle oppose.

You fail to understand regulation forces business to find alternatives.

QuoteYou oppose requiring all importers surrender ICs with face values the good they wish to bring into the USA; but that is an ENTITLEMENT of any entity legally acting as an importer and any enterprise or individual can certainly engage the services of importers.
There are no other mandates upon any entrepreneurs or enterprises within this proposal draft.

Exporter's goods are assed upon the exporter's request.  They could choose to have their goods shipped out of the USA without being assessed.

Exporters requesting assessments also agree to pay the assessment fees.  The proposal requires that those fees and any guidelines for assessing goods should be annually reviewed and updated.  The reviewing federal agency is directed to set the fees to defray all direct federal expenditures due to this Import Certificate trade policy.  They are specifically directed to refrain from those fees becoming a net source of government revenue.

Our nation can derive greater benefit due to ICs indirect subsidy of USA's exported goods rather than from permitting those fees to become a net revenue source.

Then it's pure taxation, and the end user always pays the tax, so why burden the consumer with higher prices?

Y

Quoteou may not agree but I believe the determination of goods approximate value in U.S. dollars at U.S. ports are a technical rather than a policy determination.  The proposal grants government no discretion of policy.

The draft will include a list of precious or scarce minerals.  The assessment of goods shall be reduced by the assessment of any of those specific minerals integral to the goods or the production of the goods being assessed.  Other than that, there is no discrimination among assessment of goods. Nationality of producers or any classification of industries is inconsequential to the goods' assessed values.

All assessments are the approximate value at U.S. port, in U.S. dollars.  Currency exchange rates or producer's cost of manufacturing are not considered but assessors can consider additional value for goods custom produced to suit a particular individual or purchaser or user.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CHOOSING WINNERS AND/OR LOSERS.
This is not pure free trade but it's certainly pure free enterprise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your willingness to give a faceless govt so much control with the ability to pick winners and losers is mind boggling.
Who will be assessing these values, and do you not think an administration will interfere with this process?
Look at Gibson guitars for example, you do know about that case, right?

Quote from: Solar on September 12, 2013, 10:04:44 AM
... Look at Gibson guitars for example, you do know about that case, right?

Solar no, I wasn't aware of the Gibson Guitars case.  I'm given to understand it's illegal to import some specific species of lumber into the USA.

Apparently the music industry manufactures have not made sufficient political campaign contributions to entitle them to amend the law with some waiver or other loop hole.
Their insufficient wealth didn't justify special congressional consideration; Gibson ain't Exxon.

Gibson pleaded guilty and paid a fine for illegal activity.  I'd like to discuss this with a lawyer.  Did they plead guilty to a criminal or a civil law charge?  If Gibson acted criminally, can any Gibson employee be held criminally responsible?

Does Gibson have a right to trial b y jury trial in this particular case?  If there was a possible criminal charge involved, how strong would the government's case had been?  In a criminal case the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bar's lower; proven to a "preponderance of evidence" is what's required in a civil complaint.

Ignorance of the law may mitigate but does not negate a failure of legal compliance.  I'd have to speak to a lawyer.  From what I've read thus far I have no reason to believe that the Gibson Corporation was unreasonably held responsible.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 12, 2013, 10:04:44 AM
You fail to understand regulation forces business to find alternatives.

Then it's pure taxation, and the end user always pays the tax, so why burden the consumer with higher prices?

YYour willingness to give a faceless govt so much control with the ability to pick winners and losers is mind boggling.
Who will be assessing these values, and do you not think an administration will interfere with this process?

Look at Gibson guitars for example, you do know about that case, right?

Solar, you and other continue to refer to government choosing "winners and losers" but you do not provide any reasonable explanation as to how this would be more prevalent under this proposed change of USA's trade policy.  Due to the retention of our present trade policy, USA's enterprises operate within a lesser economy, there are less jobs and lesser median wages for USA salary and wage earners; thus by chasing pure free trade our congress is choosing a lesser economy for our nation.

I do not believe that democratic elections and jury panels are perfect or reasonably excellent.
I cannot be assured that if this transferable Import Certificate proposal is ever enacted the U.S. Congress would not somehow louse it up or that there will never be individual instances of corruption within the U.S. Customs' service. 
They are dependent upon what are too often very inconsistent and illogical creatures; they're dependent upon humans.

Sheila Bair is a Republican appointed by President G.W. Bush in 2006 as chairperson of the FDIC for a 5 year term, she stated: "I believe in the free market but not the free for all market".  I'm a proponent of Import Certificate because it that improved trade policy would significantly improve our economy, our GDP, and increase our numbers of jobs and our median wage.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 13, 2013, 10:48:51 AM
Solar no, I wasn't aware of the Gibson Guitars case.  I'm given to understand it's illegal to import some specific species of lumber into the USA.

Apparently the music industry manufactures have not made sufficient political campaign contributions to entitle them to amend the law with some waiver or other loop hole.
Their insufficient wealth didn't justify special congressional consideration; Gibson ain't Exxon.

Gibson pleaded guilty and paid a fine for illegal activity.  I'd like to discuss this with a lawyer.  Did they plead guilty to a criminal or a civil law charge?  If Gibson acted criminally, can any Gibson employee be held criminally responsible?

Does Gibson have a right to trial b y jury trial in this particular case?  If there was a possible criminal charge involved, how strong would the government's case had been?  In a criminal case the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bar's lower; proven to a "preponderance of evidence" is what's required in a civil complaint.

Ignorance of the law may mitigate but does not negate a failure of legal compliance.  I'd have to speak to a lawyer.  From what I've read thus far I have no reason to believe that the Gibson Corporation was unreasonably held responsible.

Respectfully, Supposn

This might explain it better.

Report: Gibson Competitor is Dem Donor; Uses Same Wood ...
Aug 27, 2011 ... One of Gibson's leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Company. The C.E.O., Chris Martin IV, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 ...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2011/08/27/Report--Gibson-Competitor-is-Dem-Donor--Uses-Same-Wood--Experienced-No-Federal-Raids (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2011/08/27/Report--Gibson-Competitor-is-Dem-Donor--Uses-Same-Wood--Experienced-No-Federal-Raids)

Then there is the issue over Dodge dealer closures by the Obozo administration etc and you wonder why we say Govt picks winners and losers?
How about Solyndra, a failed product that should never have made it to mkt in the first place, or the fact that Obozo is killing off the coal industry in support of his "Green energy" scam, all in the name of the environment and AGW, an unproven theory.

And you want to put Govt in charge of your Utopian fantasy of IC's?
I've only scratched the surface, NSA, IRS the list goes on and on. The bigger Govt gets, the more corrupt it becomes, and that's why Conservatives want to shrink the Hell out of it.

Keep in mind, both party's want to grow Govt for crony capitalist reasons, which is why IC's are a horrible idea.

Quote from: Supposn on September 13, 2013, 12:08:39 PM
Solar, you and other continue to refer to government choosing "winners and losers" but you do not provide any reasonable explanation as to how this would be more prevalent under this proposed change of USA's trade policy.  Due to the retention of our present trade policy, USA's enterprises operate within a lesser economy, there are less jobs and lesser median wages for USA salary and wage earners; thus by chasing pure free trade our congress is choosing a lesser economy for our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

I believe this is the big disagreement.

No doubt there are problems with the current trade policy. I won't argue that. But we disagree on their nature.

I would suggest there are too many restrictions, protections and barriers. Too much politicization.

I argue that you have misplaced your ire as it regards the causes of the economic problem facing the world today. It is not a trade balance problem. It is not a story about outsourcing or competition from cheap labor.

Rather it is a story about the effect inflation and credit expansion have on investment decisions and the pattern of an economy's production structure.

When money and credit are cheap, thanks to monetary expansion, investment is induced into a pattern heavy on short run carry trades, where risk is minimized and profit margins exist only at low levels of interest. So this would be akin to the spread between borrowing at 1% and lending around the world at 4%. This is a safe 3% one can earn relatively risk free. Now when rates are higher then an investment must earn a higher yield to be viable. So higher rates (market determined) would induce investment in more long term projects, which are inherently more risky for their longer term nature, but also create more value for they fund real production processes.

Since the 70's the economy has transitioned away from producing real things toward a pattern heavy on financial services. This is the rise of the FIRE economy. Nixon's closing of the gold window enabled a much more accommodative monetary policy. This has diminished real wages for middle class workers in two different ways. One way works through the devaluation of real incomes inherent in inflation. The other is the shift in the economy toward financial services and away from producing real things. Both effects demonstrate the nonneutrality of money.

And then there is another argument to be made regarding the negative effect inflation has on incentives to save, and the effect a diminished tendency to save has on sustaining a given level of capital investment. Not to mention the fact that failing to save reduces an economies ability to fund new capital expansion projects. And we know that demand for capital is demand for labor, so capital "consumption" is going to reduce real wages just as capital expansion will lift them.

Of course I rushed through all of this and a lot more could be said. I only wish to point out that the economic problems facing this country, and the world as a whole, do not turn on a problem inherent in trade.

Toward Liberty, there are many issues where changes of policy would be an improvement to our nation. 

Significant improvement of USA's educational systems would be reflected by even more significant improvement of our national economy and social wellbeing.  But although I have some opinions regarding education there's no specific proposal that I'm confident would lead to such a significant improvement.

Even if we were not in an era of extreme political disharmony, our nation is unsatisfied with our federal budget's priorities and policies but as to what's wrong and how to rectify our faults, we are in complete disagreement.  We cannot agree upon our tax policies, or spending priorities.  Upon these issues we're not simply split but rather shattered into many small pieces, (i.e. we're Balkanized).

Regarding USA's global trade policy, leadership of both major parties and all voters to the right of the Republican Party's median voters, are generally satisfied with USA's seeking pure global free trade.  But the median of Republican Party voters are less satisfied and more split upon that issue.  As we move left along the political spectrum from the median Republican voters that dissatisfaction with pure free trade increases exponentially.

There are extremely few members of the U.S. Congress that are even aware of the transferable Import Certificate.  Why should they be if their constituents are almost completely unaware of its concept?

If enacted the transferable Import Certificate policy would more than otherwise increase our numbers of jobs, median wage, and the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports.  It would be of advantage to any enterprise operating within the USA and USA enterprise operating anywhere that uses USA goods to compete against foreign goods.  If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, it would not be of disadvantage to any USA industry.  Its entire net expenses are entirely funded by USA's final purchasers or users of imported goods.  It is for these reasons that I'm a proponent of this trade policy and it is my hope and belief that it will someday be adopted by our federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 16, 2013, 02:45:48 PM

If enacted the transferable Import Certificate policy would more than otherwise increase our numbers of jobs, median wage, and the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports.  It would be of advantage to any enterprise operating within the USA and USA enterprise operating anywhere that uses USA goods to compete against foreign goods.  If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, it would not be of disadvantage to any USA industry.  Its entire net expenses are entirely funded by USA's final purchasers or users of imported goods.  It is for these reasons that I'm a proponent of this trade policy and it is my hope and belief that it will someday be adopted by our federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn

So what's the end cost to the consumer, what percentage on an imported TV, or car?

Quote from: Solar on September 16, 2013, 06:00:10 PM
So what's the end cost to the consumer, what percentage on an imported TV, or car?

Solar, that's precisely the point that justifies adoption of Import Certificates.  Salary and wage earning families, as do all USA purchasers and users of imported goods benefit from those goods cheaper prices.  But their incomes are dependent 24/7/365 upon their USA salary and wages which do not compensate them for their share of trade deficit of goods' aggregate detriment to the numbers of jobs and their median wage.  Almost annual trade deficit's entire economic costs to the nation are paid for by USA's salary and wage earning families.

Within an Import Certificate policy the entire direct costs of the remedy are paid for by the final USA purchasers and users of imported goods.  Those prices, the additional prices of imported goods are directly related to the additional prices paid by USA's final purchasers and users of foreign goods and inversely related to the assessed values of USA's exported goods.  The policy is an indirect but effective subsidy of exported USA goods which is superior to any benefit that could be provided by tariffs contributions to our federal revenue.

Regardless of what would be those market determined increased prices of imports sold in the USA, ICs would be of aggregate net economic benefit to our entire nation and of particular benefit to our salary and wage earners.  That fully justifies the IC policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 16, 2013, 11:51:50 PM
Solar, that's precisely the point that justifies adoption of Import Certificates.  Salary and wage earning families, as do all USA purchasers and users of imported goods benefit from those goods cheaper prices.  But their incomes are dependent 24/7/365 upon their USA salary and wages which do not compensate them for their share of trade deficit of goods' aggregate detriment to the numbers of jobs and their median wage.  Almost annual trade deficit's entire economic costs to the nation are paid for by USA's salary and wage earning families.

Within an Import Certificate policy the entire direct costs of the remedy are paid for by the final USA purchasers and users of imported goods.  Those prices, the additional prices of imported goods are directly related to the additional prices paid by USA's final purchasers and users of foreign goods and inversely related to the assessed values of USA's exported goods.  The policy is an indirect but effective subsidy of exported USA goods which is superior to any benefit that could be provided by tariffs contributions to our federal revenue.

Regardless of what would be those market determined increased prices of imports sold in the USA, ICs would be of aggregate net economic benefit to our entire nation and of particular benefit to our salary and wage earners.  That fully justifies the IC policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

So you're backing an idea, a plan you have no idea of the cost to consumers, or the detriment to many jobs in America, all based on a "feeling" that it will somehow workout?

Take TVs for example, how much would a new TV cost, or computer monitor, or car?
You see, we no longer make electronics in this country and many of our auto parts are made out of country.

I ask because most American cars/trucks don't even meet the halfway point on American made, what would be the cost to the end consumer wanting to buy an American made product in this case?
Orrr, will you allow Govt. to give a grace period to certain industries?

But keep in mind, even though we may not make a tail light lens in this country, there are a great many jobs related to it's import and handling of the product, probably even more than if we had a robot cranking them out here in the US, it's just cheaper to import it than build a machine that makes them.

So I ask again, what percentage of cost will the end user incur?
If you can't tell me, then this plan should never see the light of day.

Supposn, I do empathize with your attempt to bring back jobs to the US, but more Govt incursion is never the answer, less Govt intrusion is a far better way to go.
Lets face it, the world has changed and there is a benefit to this world trade, trading partners are less likely to war, they have too much at stake if their economies are intertwined.

There are consequences to every action, no matter how noble the ideal behind it.

Quote from: Supposn on September 16, 2013, 02:45:48 PM
Toward Liberty, there are many issues where changes of policy would be an improvement to our nation. 

Significant improvement of USA's educational systems would be reflected by even more significant improvement of our national economy and social wellbeing.  But although I have some opinions regarding education there's no specific proposal that I'm confident would lead to such a significant improvement.

Even if we were not in an era of extreme political disharmony, our nation is unsatisfied with our federal budget's priorities and policies but as to what's wrong and how to rectify our faults, we are in complete disagreement.  We cannot agree upon our tax policies, or spending priorities.  Upon these issues we're not simply split but rather shattered into many small pieces, (i.e. we're Balkanized).

Regarding USA's global trade policy, leadership of both major parties and all voters to the right of the Republican Party's median voters, are generally satisfied with USA's seeking pure global free trade.  But the median of Republican Party voters are less satisfied and more split upon that issue.  As we move left along the political spectrum from the median Republican voters that dissatisfaction with pure free trade increases exponentially.

There are extremely few members of the U.S. Congress that are even aware of the transferable Import Certificate.  Why should they be if their constituents are almost completely unaware of its concept?

If enacted the transferable Import Certificate policy would more than otherwise increase our numbers of jobs, median wage, and the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports.  It would be of advantage to any enterprise operating within the USA and USA enterprise operating anywhere that uses USA goods to compete against foreign goods.  If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, it would not be of disadvantage to any USA industry.  Its entire net expenses are entirely funded by USA's final purchasers or users of imported goods.  It is for these reasons that I'm a proponent of this trade policy and it is my hope and belief that it will someday be adopted by our federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn

So what you are saying is you have no response to my points?

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 17, 2013, 06:48:44 AM
So what you are saying is you have no response to my points?

He can't, it's a "Feel Good" proposal, ripe with Govt influence.

Solar, I am not a statistician but I am certain that if you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, this proposal would not be detrimental to any USA industry.
I am certain that this proposal would be of some advantage to any USA enterprise competing against foreign goods within or beyond USA's borders.

Thus although I'm unable to produce a meaningful estimate of the net gain of jobs that that would be due to this proposal, I am certain that due to the adoption of this proposal, the USA would have more jobs than otherwise and if there are more rather than less employment opportunities  it will induce a greater rather than a lesser median wage than otherwise and thus greater rather than lesser GDP than otherwise.  It will induce greater rather than lesser USA exports than otherwise and is likely to induce greater sums of aggregate imports plus exports than other otherwise.

Presently many foreign nations' importing practices of contra tariffs, regulations and taxes leave USA at disadvantages to other nation's imports into those nations that are discriminating against us; that's not unusual.  Our government is unable or unwilling to enable USA goods be treated equitably to any of our competitors that import or aspire to import goods in those nations discriminating against us.

If the USA adopted this Import Certificates and the federal government were to continue being unable or unwilling to induce other nations to treat our exports or attempts to export products in a manner equitable to their treatment of other nations, the consequences due to our IC policy would better defend our enterprises.

A USA trasnsferable IC policy would limit the extent of any entities ability to undermine USA's global trade without doing greater harm to themselves; it even defends our exporting entrepreneurs from USA entities such as bureaus and departments within our federal government itself that too often undermine our own export trade because they seek to advance their own agendas.    Within an IC policy this all occurs due to market forces rather than U.S. federal actions.

Regardless of whatever are IC's global open market values, USA imported goods values could not exceed the assessed values of our exported goods.
The additional prices of imports will never exceed what USA purchasers and users of imported goods are willing to pay and they pay all of this proposal's net direct expenditures.  Other than the portion this policies administration expenditures that are imbedded within ICs global market values, the remainder of their values behave as an indirect and effective subsidy of USA's exported goods.

The values of specific scarce or precious minerals integral to assessed goods are excluded from their assessed values; their values are not affected by this proposal.
There is no logical reason not to have full confidence in this transferable Import Certificate policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 17, 2013, 09:36:28 AM
Solar, I am not a statistician but I am certain that if you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, this proposal would not be detrimental to any USA industry.
I am certain that this proposal would be of some advantage to any USA enterprise competing against foreign goods within or beyond USA's borders.

Thus although I'm unable to produce a meaningful estimate of the net gain of jobs that that would be due to this proposal, I am certain that due to the adoption of this proposal, the USA would have more jobs than otherwise and if there are more rather than less employment opportunities  it will induce a greater rather than a lesser median wage than otherwise and thus greater rather than lesser GDP than otherwise.  It will induce greater rather than lesser USA exports than otherwise and is likely to induce greater sums of aggregate imports plus exports than other otherwise.

Presently many foreign nations' importing practices of contra tariffs, regulations and taxes leave USA at disadvantages to other nation's imports into those nations that are discriminating against us; that's not unusual.  Our government is unable or unwilling to enable USA goods be treated equitably to any of our competitors that import or aspire to import goods in those nations discriminating against us.

If the USA adopted this Import Certificates and the federal government were to continue being unable or unwilling to induce other nations to treat our exports or attempts to export products in a manner equitable to their treatment of other nations, the consequences due to our IC policy would better defend our enterprises.

A USA trasnsferable IC policy would limit the extent of any entities ability to undermine USA's global trade without doing greater harm to themselves; it even defends our exporting entrepreneurs from USA entities such as bureaus and departments within our federal government itself that too often undermine our own export trade because they seek to advance their own agendas.    Within an IC policy this all occurs due to market forces rather than U.S. federal actions.

Regardless of whatever are IC's global open market values, USA imported goods values could not exceed the assessed values of our exported goods.
The additional prices of imports will never exceed what USA purchasers and users of imported goods are willing to pay and they pay all of this proposal's net direct expenditures.  Other than the portion this policies administration expenditures that are imbedded within ICs global market values, the remainder of their values behave as an indirect and effective subsidy of USA's exported goods.

The values of specific scarce or precious minerals integral to assessed goods are excluded from their assessed values; their values are not affected by this proposal.
There is no logical reason not to have full confidence in this transferable Import Certificate policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

For this plan to come to full fruition, the end cost on any given import product would require it's end tax to be punitively excessive, something that is very unconstitutional.

Now think about that, it would literally require the US to become an island unto itself, (isolationism) no one in other countries would buy our products because they would be cost prohibitive.

This is not one of those programs that can be lightly instituted, we have open trade with Canada, that would come to a screeching halt, India would simply quit trading with us and move towards China.
There are sever consequences you are not considering.

The following quote alone makes my point of your undying faith in govt. not to interfere.
Show me one area Govt hasn't interfered.

Quote
A USA trasnsferable IC policy would limit the extent of any entities ability to undermine USA's global trade without doing greater harm to themselves; it even defends our exporting entrepreneurs from USA entities such as bureaus and departments within our federal government itself that too often undermine our own export trade because they seek to advance their own agendas.    Within an IC policy this all occurs due to market forces rather than U.S. federal actions.

Quote from: Solar on September 17, 2013, 04:40:50 AM
So you're backing an idea, a plan you have no idea of the cost to consumers, or the detriment to many jobs in America, all based on a "feeling" that it will somehow workout?

Take TVs for example, how much would a new TV cost, or computer monitor, or car?
You see, we no longer make electronics in this country and many of our auto parts are made out of country.

I ask because most American cars/trucks don't even meet the halfway point on American made, what would be the cost to the end consumer wanting to buy an American made product in this case?
Orrr, will you allow Govt. to give a grace period to certain industries?

But keep in mind, even though we may not make a tail light lens in this country, there are a great many jobs related to it's import and handling of the product, probably even more than if we had a robot cranking them out here in the US, it's just cheaper to import it than build a machine that makes them. ...

Solar, although I expect and would hope that that manufacturing enterprises would reap the greatest benefits due to this proposal, it is not limited to any particular industry or type of goods.  The critical advantage of this proposal is that the USA will increase its numbers of jobs, its median wage and thus its GDP, regardless of which industry increase of production is the greater than the others.

You have in at least one prior reply referred to the foreign components of USA produced goods and I've fully responded to you.
Refer to Reply #72 on: April 17, 2012, 02:08:15 PM, within this discussion thread,
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/reduce-the-trade-deficit-increase-gdp-median-wage/60/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/reduce-the-trade-deficit-increase-gdp-median-wage/60/)

In regard to what the USA currently does or does not make, I apparently have more confidence then you demonstrate with regard to USA's free enterprise domestic market places.  There's no need for "grace periods".  USA's domestic market will continue to determine what we produce and what we import.  What differs is due to the Import Certificate policy the assessed values of our imported goods are unable to exceed that of our exported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 17, 2013, 04:40:50 AM
So you're backing an idea, a plan you have no idea of the cost to consumers, or the detriment to many jobs in America, all based on a "feeling" that it will somehow workout? ...
...So I ask again, what percentage of cost will the end user incur?
If you can't tell me, then this plan should never see the light of day.

Solar, within a pure free trade policy USA's global trade will refrain from adjusting for foreign labor compensations' lesser purchasing powers until their wages become on par with our own.  That could occur when due to their wages increasing to meet ours but it's more likely that the major reason for such a meeting of wage levels would be due to our wages purchasing powers plunging down to meet theirs.  That's the eventual consequences of our continuing to seek pure free trade.

I am not a statistician but I am certain that if you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, this proposal would not be detrimental to any USA industry;
I am certain that this proposal would be of some advantage to any USA enterprise competing against foreign goods within or beyond USA's borders;
thus I'm certain that this transferable Import Certificate proposal is to our nation's net benefit.

Thus although I'm unable to produce a meaningful estimate of the net gain of jobs that that would be due to this proposal, I am certain that due to the adoption of this proposal, the USA would have more jobs than otherwise and if there are more rather than less employment opportunities, it will induce a greater rather than a lesser than otherwise USA median wage and volumes of exports and the sum of USA"s aggregate imports plus exports.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why in the world would anyone want to pervert reality and consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?

No logical reason not to have confidence in a transferable import certificate policy?

Is that right?

Well we know that such a policy will end up reducing imports, acting as a sort of economy wide tariff. This will raise the price people will have to pay in order to continue consuming at the level they are accustomed.

Not only that but other nations tend to retaliate when tariffs are erected. And we know what that does to trade and the economy.

Whether or not the protection will result in a net benefit for the common man will depend on the quality of jobs that this intervention induces, versus the quality of jobs that it diminishes.

How that nets out is anyone's guess.

What I do know is that political allocations are generally always in the interest of the few, where as market outcomes are dictated by the tyranny of the masses of consumers.

So I tend to side with the more inclusive institution, as it is based in peace rather than force and is disciplined by market forces (profit and loss) where as the state has no such discipline. There is nothing keeping the state from achieving inefficient but politically popular outcomes. 

Trade is a problem facing the global economy. There is way too much protection in this funny brand of "free trade." After all how much free trade can exist in a bill thousands of pages long?

The transferable IC proposal's market not government driven.

Solar, exporters of U.S. goods cannot sell the Import Certificates they acquire if they price them beyond ICs' global market values.

Importers of foreign goods entering the USA will be unwilling to pay more than they can pass on to their buyers which are limited to how much additional costs USA's final purchasers of foreign goods will tolerate before the balk.

Importers of USA goods into foreign nation would also be well aware of IC's global market price and they will negotiate for lesser priced USA goods reflecting exporters' additional revenue due their reselling the ICs they acquire.

Conservatives talk of supply and demand and then deny that it's germane when they're confronted with it?  This proposed IC trade proposal is primarily market rather than government driven.

You object because despite other nation's laborers' lesser purchasing power, this proposal would increase USA's exports and additionally increase the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports?

Solar you're correct; there will be attempt to evade the purpose of the law; there will be corruption, there will be dishonesty.

Government is no different than the banking industry, or riverboat gamblers, or the military, or the church, or the American Medical association, or the exercise yard of our penitentiaries or any other gathering of people.   You' find corruption among rabies, judges, bookies, drug dealers, housewives and school teachers.
I speculate the proportion and extent of corruption within those population segments differ; but when a judge screws you, it's no different than the cards you get from a dishonest card dealer except probably the judges crime will be of greater cost to you.

I'm less mistrustful of explicitly drafted government laws and regulations created and enacted in the sunshine and publicly viewed. I greatly dread any (government or non-government) bureaucratic discretion of policy that directly or indirectly affect me and mine and create or perpetuate inequities that evolve from the exercising of such discretion.

Transferable import Certificate policy proposal's economically superior to our present global trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 17, 2013, 11:47:31 AM
Why in the world would anyone want to pervert reality and consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?

Toward Liberty, why would anyone believe it is a perversion of reality to consider USA's importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?
Currently aren't there many USA enterprises that perform both of those tasks?

Other industries have specialized sub-category enterprises or they may or may not establish separate bureaucracies for the differing tasks within their enterprise.  On the other hand they may distinguish bureaucratic entities by the foreign nation or groups of nations each department deals with.  Separate specialties but are often considered as a single industry.  What is it about USA's global trade industry that you find so different than many other industries?

It's a suggested consideration; no one's suggested that anyone MUST consider importing and exporting as a single industry.  You certainly write like a drama queen.  Did you originate that hyperbole phrase "pervert reality"?  I've never encountered it before.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 17, 2013, 11:59:40 AM
No logical reason not to have confidence in a transferable import certificate policy?

Is that right?

Well we know that such a policy will end up reducing imports, acting as a sort of economy wide tariff. This will raise the price people will have to pay in order to continue consuming at the level they are accustomed.

Not only that but other nations tend to retaliate when tariffs are erected. And we know what that does to trade and the economy.

Whether or not the protection will result in a net benefit for the common man will depend on the quality of jobs that this intervention induces, versus the quality of jobs that it diminishes.

How that nets out is anyone's guess.

What I do know is that political allocations are generally always in the interest of the few, where as market outcomes are dictated by the tyranny of the masses of consumers.

So I tend to side with the more inclusive institution, as it is based in peace rather than force and is disciplined by market forces (profit and loss) where as the state has no such discipline. There is nothing keeping the state from achieving inefficient but politically popular outcomes. 

Trade is a problem facing the global economy. There is way too much protection in this funny brand of "free trade." After all how much free trade can exist in a bill thousands of pages long?

Toward Liberty, opinions are not facts and when you "write we all know" you are claiming or inferring that your opinions are shared by all or at least the vast majority of persons considering the same subject.  "We all know" is a hyperbole that I believe almost all of us have encountered and it the case of your post #181 it's far from what is actual.  Everyone does not generally agree with your opinion in this matter and possibly in many other matters.

Throughout my posts I refute your post #181, but my post #182 specifically argues that this transferable Import Certificates proposal is based upon, is dependent upon and would succeed because it's based upon pure free enterprise concepts.

I a populists, suppose you and our fellow members of this group consider "liberal" as the least insulting label you all wish to hang around my neck.

So why is it that you all do not to the extent that I do have confidence in our domestic market places when they practice pure free enterprise methods?  The transferable IC proposal is not pure free trade but it's certainly pure free enterprise.

Why do you all who describe yourselves as conservatives argue that in this case of ICs, free enterprise will not succeed?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 04:12:31 AM
Toward Liberty, why would anyone believe it is a perversion of reality to consider USA's importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?

It is a perversion of reality because trade happens between firms in many different industries. Sure some firms export and import.

The big disagreement between us regards the coherence of viewing trade as something happening between counties, instead of between individual firms.

The implication being that when trade is viewed in a realistic fashion, trade balances become meaninglessly incoherent.

National trade balances only achieve coherence when trade is viewed as an industry inside a single firm.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 05:39:22 AM
Toward Liberty, opinions are not facts and when you "write we all know" you are claiming or inferring that your opinions are shared by all or at least the vast majority of persons considering the same subject.  "We all know" is a hyperbole that I believe almost all of us have encountered and it the case of your post #181 it's far from what is actual.  Everyone does not generally agree with your opinion in this matter and possibly in many other matters.

Throughout my posts I refute your post #181, but my post #182 specifically argues that this transferable Import Certificates proposal is based upon, is dependent upon and would succeed because it's based upon pure free enterprise concepts.

I a populists, suppose you and our fellow members of this group consider "liberal" as the least insulting label you all wish to hang around my neck.

So why is it that you all do not to the extent that I do have confidence in our domestic market places when they practice pure free enterprise methods?  The transferable IC proposal is not pure free trade but it's certainly pure free enterprise.

Why do you all who describe yourselves as conservatives argue that in this case of ICs, free enterprise will not succeed?

Respectfully, Supposn

Ah but we do "know" this to be true from our economic intuition.

When competition is reduced prices rise.

We have to remember that this is an economy wide tariff which will result in fewer imports. We also have to remember that firms import goods that are cheaper to produce else where.

Add that together and you get falling real incomes.

Now you suggest that this will lead to more growth in the domestic market, and that these new jobs will be more valuable and productive than the old ones they replace.

These new jobs are thought to be export jobs.

But if that were indeed true then this tariff would not be needed, for the market needs no impetus for discovering profitable investments.

And let us recall that tariffs typically incite retaliation and that leads to a shrinking ability to export.

You have to face the fact that the allocation of investment across the economies structure of production is something you wish to influence via policy, in typical central planning fashion.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 18, 2013, 06:38:09 AM
It is a perversion of reality because trade happens between firms in many different industries. Sure some firms export and import. ...

Toward Liberty, I've been told that some steel corporations make all types of steel and some only manufacture very specific specialized types of steel.  If that's the case, you'd contend that there is no steel industry?
 
I suppose that most importing or exporting enterprises transactions are concentrated upon relatively few types of products; (i.e. by choice or circumstances they have become specialists).  I would suppose that the majority of enterprises that serve as importers on behalf of their clients, (as opposed to importers of goods almost entirely devoted to supporting the production output of their own enterprises', (i.e. in house importing specialists) would also serve clients requiring they act as exporters on behalf of their clients.  Some clients may have need for both and others may need only one side of their expertise.  This would be a logical employment of those enterprises' expertise of global trade.

I'm of course speculating that these do not describe particularly rare or even unusual cases.  Perhaps you or one of the other CPF members have some actual experience and could correct what I admit is only my speculative concepts?

I perceive no logical reason why USA's importing and exporting cannot logically be perceived as a single industry engaged in USA's global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toward Liberty, regardless of the rejection or acceptance of a "global trade industry" concept, familiarity of other nations' commercial environments breeds perceptions of commercial opportunities within those nations that might have otherwise been unrecognized.

The increased types of USA exported products due to Import Certificates behaving as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods is not unlikely to induce some additional USA imports.

If USA adopted the transferable ICs policy it's logical to expect that it will soon increase USA's exports of goods more than otherwise.  (Otherwise being continuation of our current global trade policies).   Along with that we can expect that the sum of USA's aggregate imports plus exports will soon increase (more than otherwise).

I speculate that because of this familiarity I described, USA's imports will to some extent also in time increase (more than otherwise).

I'm using a Library computer and my time is up.  I can't finish this and spell check so this ends this post.

Respectfully, Supposn

Lets take a real world example, hypothetical of course, but this is how trade works.

China sells widgets at $5.0 a piece, suddenly we institute the IC program, so the person that's been buying widgets from China tells his supplier he can't absorb the added cost of the certificate, and his customers refuse to pay the added cost, so he tells his exporter friend in China he's folding his business.

Well that worked out great, didn't it? Put the guy out of business.

Now the other version, the exporter tells his friend he'll reduce the cost of the product a dollar per, which is an exact offset of the cost of the IC.

So what just happened here? That's right, absolutely nothing, except the Govt just found a new source of business tax.

Quote from: Solar on September 18, 2013, 06:58:36 PM
Lets take a real world example, hypothetical of course, but this is how trade works.

China sells widgets at $5.0 a piece, suddenly we institute the IC program, so the person that's been buying widgets from China tells his supplier he can't absorb the added cost of the certificate, and his customers refuse to pay the added cost, so he tells his exporter friend in China he's folding his business. ...

Solar, one step at a time let's walk your example through.
If you're applying this to reality, you need to be specific and explicit.

Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Solar, one step at a time let's walk your example through.
If you're applying this to reality, you need to be specific and explicit.

Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn

It's pretty self explanatory, point is, in the end, the manufacturer lowered his price in order to keep his buyer, buying from him.
So what was the end result? The Govt got a cut, the consumer still gets imported widgets at the same price and nothing changed.

Toward liberty, although you do not believe it. I am no less than you a proponent of free enterprise.  We share confidence in many of the same economic concepts.
People generally adapt to their environments and rationalize what's in their best interests are similarly to their nations' best interests.

Adoption of the transferable IC policy changes the environment of the nation's global trade and thus people's behavior. Due to the same free enterprise concepts that you and I agree upon, the adoption of the IC proposal would improve USA's economy more than other wise; (otherwise being the retention of our present global trade policies).

This is based upon the logic explained in the "Trade Balances' affects upon their nation's GDP" paragraphs within the Wikipedia article entitled "balance of trade", (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade))
and
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps) .

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 18, 2013, 06:58:36 PM
Lets take a real world example, hypothetical of course, but this is how trade works.

China sells widgets at $5.0 a piece, suddenly we institute the IC program, so the person that's been buying widgets from China tells his supplier he can't absorb the added cost of the certificate, and his customers refuse to pay the added cost, so he tells his exporter friend in China he's folding his business. ...

Solar, ... Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////

Solar your answer is that "It's pretty self explanatory"?  If it were self explanatory, the answers to my questions would be found within your post.  I don't sign blank checks.
Dependent upon your answers, additional questions may arise.  Differing conditions have different consequences.  If you cannot provide answers to these minimal inquiries, you don't really have an example and you don't really care to receive an answer to one.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 11:24:22 PM
Solar, ... Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////

Solar your answer is that "It's pretty self explanatory"?  If it were self explanatory, the answers to my questions would be found within your post.  I don't sign blank checks.
Dependent upon your answers, additional questions may arise.  Differing conditions have different consequences.  If you cannot provide answers to these minimal inquiries, you don't really have an example and you don't really care to receive an answer to one.

Respectfully, Supposn

Oh jeeeez, widgets are imaginary products that can have any value variable applied.
I used $5 because it's easy, the public quit using them because a one dollar increase was more than the Mkt was willing to bare.
Have you no imagination whatsoever? Your need to know every detail tells me your thinking is inline with leftists that believe they can control everything if they have all the numbers, not once considering human nature.
It's all about money and power.

Get it through your head, you cannot dictate Mkts and expect progress, what you will get is monopolies that can afford to play within the rules of your scheme of sucking the life force out of a system that runs on a shoddy set of rules as it is, but still works regardless.

What this comes down to is just another tax under the guise of leveling the playing field, based on the Carbon tax model/scheme.

"Carbon Trading" is exactly the same, which is where Buffet got his idea.

At least the Carbon tax is called a tax, but your IC works exactly the same way, "Pay to Play" tax!
Though Gore originally called it a Carbon Mkt of trading CC's, (Carbon Certificates) in the beginning, but once people figured out just how it worked, they quickly realized it was designed to benefit only a few, including Govt, and accomplish absolutely nothing, and that Sir is exactly what your plan does. Absolutely nothing but make a few richer and make certain monopolies larger.

Replacing our lopsided (and not so) "Free Trade" with "Fair Trade" agreements would help solve a lot of our trade deficit problems (particularly with China).

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with foreign trade as long as it's fair and balanced between countries.

But then again, the real problem we face is that the United States borrows much of its money from the Chinese who, in turn, export a large percentage of the products found on our store shelves. China, in this respect, has the U.S. "over a barrel" so to speak (i.e. attempts to enact fair and balanced trade agreements with the Chinese could, or would, result in decreased lending to the U.S. on their part.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 04:12:55 PM
Toward Liberty, I've been told that some steel corporations make all types of steel and some only manufacture very specific specialized types of steel.  If that's the case, you'd contend that there is no steel industry?
 
I suppose that most importing or exporting enterprises transactions are concentrated upon relatively few types of products; (i.e. by choice or circumstances they have become specialists).  I would suppose that the majority of enterprises that serve as importers on behalf of their clients, (as opposed to importers of goods almost entirely devoted to supporting the production output of their own enterprises', (i.e. in house importing specialists) would also serve clients requiring they act as exporters on behalf of their clients.  Some clients may have need for both and others may need only one side of their expertise.  This would be a logical employment of those enterprises' expertise of global trade.

I'm of course speculating that these do not describe particularly rare or even unusual cases.  Perhaps you or one of the other CPF members have some actual experience and could correct what I admit is only my speculative concepts?

I perceive no logical reason why USA's importing and exporting cannot logically be perceived as a single industry engaged in USA's global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

To your question above- of course there is a steel industry.

There are many industries.

The problem is in viewing trade as a single industry, or as trade between two national units.

In reality, trade occurs between distinct firms and involves an exchange of money for goods. There is no deficit to speak of.

And that is why trade balances are nonsensical.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 04:21:14 PM
Toward Liberty, regardless of the rejection or acceptance of a "global trade industry" concept, familiarity of other nations' commercial environments breeds perceptions of commercial opportunities within those nations that might have otherwise been unrecognized.

The increased types of USA exported products due to Import Certificates behaving as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods is not unlikely to induce some additional USA imports.

If USA adopted the transferable ICs policy it's logical to expect that it will soon increase USA's exports of goods more than otherwise.  (Otherwise being continuation of our current global trade policies).   Along with that we can expect that the sum of USA's aggregate imports plus exports will soon increase (more than otherwise).

I speculate that because of this familiarity I described, USA's imports will to some extent also in time increase (more than otherwise).

I'm using a Library computer and my time is up.  I can't finish this and spell check so this ends this post.

Respectfully, Supposn

Exports are going to decrease, not increase, when US firms decrease demand for imports from other nations. Nations retaliate. We know this from history.

The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports.

And I would be careful of thinking in terms of aggregates. It is not quantities of goods in and out that matters, rather it is their quality.

And further it seems to me that this entire concept is related to a misunderstanding of the economic problem. The IC policy does nothing to alleviate the real underlying causes of the unemployment, meager economic growth, stagnant real wages, etc with are rooted in our monetary system.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 10:50:31 PM
Toward liberty, although you do not believe it. I am no less than you a proponent of free enterprise.  We share confidence in many of the same economic concepts.
People generally adapt to their environments and rationalize what's in their best interests are similarly to their nations' best interests.

Adoption of the transferable IC policy changes the environment of the nation's global trade and thus people's behavior. Due to the same free enterprise concepts that you and I agree upon, the adoption of the IC proposal would improve USA's economy more than other wise; (otherwise being the retention of our present global trade policies).

This is based upon the logic explained in the "Trade Balances' affects upon their nation's GDP" paragraphs within the Wikipedia article entitled "balance of trade", (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade))
and
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps) .

Respectfully, Supposn

I dont believe we propose the same system, not at all. Nor do we understand it in a similar way.

I don't even recognize national interest as a coherent concept, nor do I agree with the relationship between trade balances and GDP. Indeed I don't even think GDP is a coherent metric.

I would place the IC certificate plan under the heading of mercantilism or protectionism and characterize it as a form of central planning.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 18, 2013, 06:38:09 AM... The big disagreement between us regards the coherence of viewing trade as something happening between counties, instead of between individual firms.

The implication being that when trade is viewed in a realistic fashion, trade balances become meaninglessly incoherent.

National trade balances only achieve coherence when trade is viewed as an industry inside a single firm.

Toward Liberty & cc Solar, you (Toward Liberty), and I ALMOST agree upon one of the contentions between us.

I do consider aggregate transactions between the USA and the remainder of the world with little or no concern for individual transactions.
But even when considering national trade deficits' in general, I do consider some differences between the attributes of individual nations' trade deficits.

Thus within a thread I entitled "Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs", my first post is entitled "Annual trade deficits are always an immediate detrimental to their nations' GDPs" and my second post is entitled "Mitigating trade deficit's national detriments".
( http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg144676/#msg144676 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg144676/#msg144676) ).

I wrote that to an extent nations' lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products.  It is also conceivable for a nation's laborers' aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit's detriment to their GDP.  Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits (and I then pointed out that these exceptions were not sufficiently significant within USA's cases to significantly alter our annual trade deficits' detriments to our GDPs).

The point is that even when discussing aggregate rather than individual national circumstances, there can be differences between nations' aggregate circumstances that significantly alter those individual nations' economies.

[Solar, I'm not attempting to evade what you consider as an example to be considered and discussed but unless you can provide what I consider to be germane details of your "example", I cannot reasonably consider it as an "example" to be discussed].

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:21:02 AM...The problem is in viewing trade as a single industry, or as trade between two national units.
In reality, trade occurs between distinct firms and involves an exchange of money for goods. There is no deficit to speak of.
And that is why trade balances are nonsensical.

Toward Liberty, you take the libertarian approach and I'm a populist.  I prefer that the wealthy be wealthier by sharing a smaller portion of a larger pie, you prefer that they enjoy superior privileges by obtain a much larger than the 95% population segment of a smaller pie.

Libertarians are upset because a much larger segment of our population will have some more adequate healthcare insurance.  Libertarians prefer higher aggregate national taxes and/or lesser national care by limiting healthcare only to those who can afford outrageous prices or those who are able to obtain the benefits from private charities.

It's my perception, and I suppose you have reached a similar conclusion from our dialogues, if the basis of our differing economic philosophies.  You do not accept the concept of a national economy and I contend that national economies and economic policies should exist for the net benefit of the entire nation.

We both to a great extent agree upon the benefits of free enterprise but our goals for the consequences of those policies apparently differ to a great extent.

I am not theoretically or morally opposed to progressive tax rates but I prefer those differences be reduced if they cannot be entirely eliminated because due to their political consequences they induce poorer economic  consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Telmark on September 19, 2013, 06:52:36 AM... But then again, the real problem we face is that the United States borrows much of its money from the Chinese who, in turn, export a large percentage of the products found on our store shelves. China, in this respect, has the U.S. "over a barrel" so to speak (i.e. attempts to enact fair and balanced trade agreements with the Chinese could, or would, result in decreased lending to the U.S. on their part.

Telmark, we should not refrain from enacting what we consider should be done to improve our economy because we fear China will cease purchasing U.S. federal debts.  Similar to those experiencing drug rehabilitation treatments, we have to endure the remedy if we are to have a decent future.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM
Exports are going to decrease, not increase, when US firms decrease demand for imports from other nations. Nations retaliate. We know this from history.

The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports.

And I would be careful of thinking in terms of aggregates. It is not quantities of goods in and out that matters, rather it is their quality.

And further it seems to me that this entire concept is related to a misunderstanding of the economic problem. The IC policy does nothing to alleviate the real underlying causes of the unemployment, meager economic growth, stagnant real wages, etc with are rooted in our monetary system.

Bingo! Inflation will kill us long before any trade imbalance will effect our economy.

Quote from: Supposn on September 19, 2013, 10:10:57 AM
Telmark, we should not refrain from enacting what we consider should be done to improve our economy because we fear China will cease purchasing U.S. federal debts.  Similar to those experiencing drug rehabilitation treatments, we have to endure the remedy if we are to have a decent future.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree 100%. Now if we could only get our "leaders" to think the same...

Quote from: Supposn on September 19, 2013, 10:10:57 AM
Telmark, we should not refrain from enacting what we consider should be done to improve our economy because we fear China will cease purchasing U.S. federal debts.  Similar to those experiencing drug rehabilitation treatments, we have to endure the remedy if we are to have a decent future.

Respectfully, Supposn

China is not to blame, we, the people of the US are to blame for buying cheap crap, wanting Govt to do what we as individuals should do, is a cowards way out.

Look around your house and tell me half the stuff in your home isn't from China.
And if you think buying from Ikea, or Japanese products, Korean, India etc, think again, they too use cheap Chinese labor for their products as well.

Trying to curb buying habits through taxation is punitive, just like the tobacco tax or snack tax.
In truth, you are an enabler of big Govt.
Think about that.

Quote from: Supposn on September 19, 2013, 09:47:24 AM
Toward Liberty, you take the libertarian approach and I'm a populist.  I prefer that the wealthy be wealthier by sharing a smaller portion of a larger pie, you prefer that they enjoy superior privileges by obtain a much larger than the 95% population segment of a smaller pie.

That is a strawman. Libertarians support equality before the law and free markets. That puts everyone on the same playing field, ie no privileges. It is the policy of interventionism that creates the very privileges we are speaking of.

The economic logic I work from involves a recognition of an opportunity cost, in terms of economic growth, inherent in every intervention and it is from the desire to see a more fairer distribution of wealth that I advocate for the changes I do. Indeed without understanding the role of the state and the perversion it has on the economy, we cannot make sense of the attack on the middle class, nor the stagnation of real wages, that has characterized the economy since the late 70s.

Quote


Libertarians are upset because a much larger segment of our population will have some more adequate healthcare insurance.  Libertarians prefer higher aggregate national taxes and/or lesser national care by limiting healthcare only to those who can afford outrageous prices or those who are able to obtain the benefits from private charities.

It sounds like we must be working from a different idea of the meaning of the word libertarian.

As a libertarian I oppose taxation and generally all acts involving coercion.

Quote

It's my perception, and I suppose you have reached a similar conclusion from our dialogues, if the basis of our differing economic philosophies.  You do not accept the concept of a national economy and I contend that national economies and economic policies should exist for the net benefit of the entire nation.

Well that is indeed the truth. I believe the concept of a national economy to be a gross fiction. It is not a coherent concept given the nature of exchange.

Quote

We both to a great extent agree upon the benefits of free enterprise but our goals for the consequences of those policies apparently differ to a great extent.

I am not theoretically or morally opposed to progressive tax rates but I prefer those differences be reduced if they cannot be entirely eliminated because due to their political consequences they induce poorer economic  consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn

It is fair to say we are in completely different worlds when it comes to how we view the economy.

With that said you are a respectful and competent debate opponent and I appreciate that.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM
Exports are going to decrease, not increase, when US firms decrease demand for imports from other nations. ...

Toward Liberty, "Exports are going to decrease ... US firms (will) decrease demand for imports from other nations"; because you KNOW this from history?

Precisely how many nations do you KNOW of that have enacted a transferable IC policy in the described manner of this IC proposal?

When USA adopts a transferable IC policy, nation's wishing to continue importing their goods into the USA will require ICs which are only issued to exporters of USA goods.
Importers of goods into the USA or their agents can acquire ICs directly from the federal government if they also act as exporters of USA goods.

There are many indirect methods for importers of goods into the USA to acquire ICs:
They can purchase ICs on the open global market, (i.e. the internet).

If they are also foreign purchasers of USA export, rather than negotiating for lesser prices (due to exporters of USA goods acquiring valuable ICs at rock-bottom prices) t5hey could negotiate and purchase both the USA exported goods plus the IC's at a bundled price deal.

The critical point is that goods of any assessed value cannot be imported into the USA unless some goods of equal value were first exported from the USA.  Any enterprise that is presently exporting foreign goods into the USA will have to consider their costs of ICs which are determined by the open global market and then decide if it's profitable to continue exporting their goods into the USA or do they wish to relinquish their current share of USA's domestic markets to their competitors.

Isn't that the concept of free enterprise and individuals determining their own course to follow?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM... Nations retaliate. We know this from history.

The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports. ...

Toward Liberty, "Nations retaliate. We know this from history"?  Again I ask how many nations do you KNOW of that have enacted a transferable IC policy in the described manner of this IC proposal?
Regarding foreign nations' mischievous trade retaliation; excerpted from post #176:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If the USA adopted this Import Certificates and the federal government were to continue being unable or unwilling to induce other nations to treat our exports or attempts to export products in a manner equitable to their treatment of other nations, the consequences due to our IC policy would better defend our enterprises.

A USA transferable IC policy would limit the extent of any entities ability to undermine USA's global trade without doing greater harm to themselves; it even defends our exporting entrepreneurs from USA entities such as bureaus and departments within our federal government itself that too often undermine our own export trade because they seek to advance their own agendas.    Within an IC policy this all occurs due to market forces rather than U.S. federal actions.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You wrote "The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports".
It's an English sentence but it doesn't make sense.  Typographical error or you lost your train of thought?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM... And I would be careful of thinking in terms of aggregates. It is not quantities of goods in and out that matters, rather it is their quality.

And further it seems to me that this entire concept is related to a misunderstanding of the economic problem. The IC policy does nothing to alleviate the real underlying causes of the unemployment, meager economic growth, stagnant real wages, etc with are rooted in our monetary system.

Toward Liberty, No, it is quantities of dollars that we're counting because that's how we keep score.  On the score board there's no difference between an in the fields home run and another run that was achieved by knocking the ball out of the entire stadium.

This IC concept excludes scarce or precious minerals from goods' assessed values but otherwise it does not determine dollar per dollar that the value of a rancher's beef is less economically beneficial than a boing aircraft.  It just issues ICs to exporters and collects ICs from importers according to their good's adjusted assessed values.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I will not argue as to the amount of net benefit this trade proposal would be to our economy as opposed to some other economic measures we can take.  It's justified because it would be a net benefit to our nation, is of no government net expense and does not consume any resources or hinder the enactment of any other serious proposal that would benefit our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 19, 2013, 05:58:48 PM
China is not to blame, we, the people of the US are to blame for buying cheap crap, wanting Govt to do what we as individuals should do, is a cowards way out.

Look around your house and tell me half the stuff in your home isn't from China.
And if you think buying from Ikea, or Japanese products, Korean, India etc, think again, they too use cheap Chinese labor for their products as well.

Trying to curb buying habits through taxation is punitive, just like the tobacco tax or snack tax.
In truth, you are an enabler of big Govt.
Think about that.

Solar, libertarians hate the concept of a "sin tax" designed to reduce what the government believes to be behavior that's contrary to the nation's best interests and/or directly or indirectly increases the cost of government to all taxpayers.
I would hope that they are not also opposed to a "use" taxes.  Taxing specific products or services defrays government expenses for services or products at government expense that is of more direct benefit to those user's and of less direct benefit to the remainder of our population; (e.g. taxes on gas or auto vehicle registration fees).

I do not consider the purchase of imports as a sin.  I don't consider purchasing cheap foreign or domestic goods as a sin.  I'm a proponent of free enterprise and individuals determining their own course to follow.
But annual trade deficits are always immediately (MORE THAN OTHERWISE) detrimental to their nation's numbers of jobs and median wage.  These detriments are reflected in their nation's GDPs.
Refer to Wikipedia's paragraphs entitled "Trade Balances' affects upon their nation's GDP" within the article entitled "Balance of trade"
Or
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg141948/#msg141948 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg141948/#msg141948)

Since the final USA purchasers and users of imported goods are almost directly responsible for our trade deficit of goods and its economic detriment to our nation, it's reasonable for them to pay the cost of the remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 21, 2013, 01:19:21 AM
Solar, libertarians hate the concept of a "sin tax" designed to reduce what the government believes to be behavior that's contrary to the nation's best interests and/or directly or indirectly increases the cost of government to all taxpayers.
I would hope that they are not also opposed to a "use" taxes.  Taxing specific products or services defrays government expenses for services or products at government expense that is of more direct benefit to those user's and of less direct benefit to the remainder of our population; (e.g. taxes on gas or auto vehicle registration fees).

I do not consider the purchase of imports as a sin.  I don't consider purchasing cheap foreign or domestic goods as a sin.  I'm a proponent of free enterprise and individuals determining their own course to follow.
But annual trade deficits are always immediately (MORE THAN OTHERWISE) detrimental to their nation's numbers of jobs and median wage.  These detriments are reflected in their nation's GDPs.
Refer to Wikipedia's paragraphs entitled "Trade Balances' affects upon their nation's GDP" within the article entitled "Balance of trade"
Or
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg141948/#msg141948 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg141948/#msg141948)

Since the final USA purchasers and users of imported goods are almost directly responsible for our trade deficit of goods and its economic detriment to our nation, it's reasonable for them to pay the cost of the remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

You see an imaginary problem and think govt can fix it.
The trade imbalance is a direct result of Govt, and now you want to give more power to the animal that created it in the first place.

First off, you give this issue way more importance than it deserves, you assume we can miraculously return to the glory days of the 60s by giving Govt more power over our Mkts. That my friend is the epitome of insanity.

Trade will always cycle, that's just a fact of life, as economies rise and fall, trade around the world will be effected, China is a good Mkt for labor, but in another decade another country will take it's place, India looks good at the moment as well, but neither of their Mkts can afford our products until their labor wage improves, and sticking a tax on our end will not help their labor rates improve, just force them to find another Mkt in which to peddle their goods.

Stop looking at the Mkt as a singularity, it is extremely fluid, it will always seek the path of least resistance, and what is Govt interference, but one huge ass dam.

Quote from: Solar on September 21, 2013, 07:08:14 AM
You see an imaginary problem and think govt can fix it.
The trade imbalance is a direct result of Govt, and now you want to give more power to the animal that created it in the first place.

First off, you give this issue way more importance than it deserves, you assume we can miraculously return to the glory days of the 60s by giving Govt more power over our Mkts. That my friend is the epitome of insanity.

Trade will always cycle, that's just a fact of life, as economies rise and fall, trade around the world will be effected, China is a good Mkt for labor, but in another decade another country will take it's place, India looks good at the moment as well, but neither of their Mkts can afford our products until their labor wage improves, and sticking a tax on our end will not help their labor rates improve, just force them to find another Mkt in which to peddle their goods.

Stop looking at the Mkt as a singularity, it is extremely fluid, it will always seek the path of least resistance, and what is Govt interference, but one huge ass dam.

Solar, the primary cause of USA's trade deficit is foreign nation's unable or unwilling to pay wages at par to USA's median wage's purchasing power.
Wage's purchasing power parity can be achieved by some "mix" of foreign wages' increasing or USA's wages' plunging down.
An import Certificate policy "caps" trade deficits' detriments to their nation's economy, subsidizes the nations' exports at no net cost to the nation's budget.  All of the policy's direct costs are entirely paid by the nation's purchasers and users of imported goods.

Regardless of the consequences due to any other entities (including the federal government), do or fail to do, regardless of global currency exchange rates, USA' economy would be better than otherwise if it had enacted this proposed import Certificate policy.
I'm among those that contend due to the transferable IC policy the economic improvement would be significant.  But if it were less than significant, the fact that it's a net improvement justifies its enactment.

USA has had annual trade deficits of goods for over a half century.  We are discussing a chronic drag upon our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 22, 2013, 10:55:59 PM
Solar, the primary cause of USA's trade deficit is foreign nation's unable or unwilling to pay wages at par to USA's median wage's purchasing power.
Wage's purchasing power parity can be achieved by some "mix" of foreign wages' increasing or USA's wages' plunging down.

So what? I don't blame hem in the least. Think about it, why are our wages out of sink with the rest of the world? Answer, Unions, they are a cancer on our culture and you want govt, the host to accommodate the leach even further.
Deficits are not at imbalance, it is our standard of living that is out of sync with reality, yet you myopically focus on one symptom, trade.

QuoteAn import Certificate policy "caps" trade deficits' detriments to their nation's economy, subsidizes the nations' exports at no net cost to the nation's budget.  All of the policy's direct costs are entirely paid by the nation's purchasers and users of imported goods.

And that would be a TAX!!! Wake up man, that's all it is, it's not a fee, or revenue enhancement as you suggest to fix an imagined problem, it's a way to suck more money out of the private sector.

Quote
Regardless of the consequences due to any other entities (including the federal government), do or fail to do, regardless of global currency exchange rates, USA' economy would be better than otherwise if it had enacted this proposed import Certificate policy.
I'm among those that contend due to the transferable IC policy the economic improvement would be significant.  But if it were less than significant, the fact that it's a net improvement justifies its enactment.

That's an emotional argument, not one based in reality.

QuoteUSA has had annual trade deficits of goods for over a half century.  We are discussing a chronic drag upon our economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

Then fix the problem and quit thinking a new paint job on a rust bucket in an attempt to hide the real issue, we are the ones that have a false economy, we drew the rest of the world into backing the dollar, but didn't keep up our end of the bargain and started printing money, in turn devaluing it's standard, all the while lining the pockets of union leaders while they demand higher COLA's demanding a minimum wage increase based on an over inflated dollar.

And you think punishing the worker with an unrealistic demand on other countries, as well as all Americans with this "pay to play" scheme is a magic bullet?
Supposn, as respectfully as possible, Wake the Hell up, the trade imbalance is our fault, not that of other countries.

Quote from: Solar on September 23, 2013, 06:20:49 AM...
(Trade) deficits are not at imbalance, it is our standard of living that is out of sync with reality, yet you myopically focus on one symptom, trade. ...

Solar, we may disagree as to the extent of the multi factors affecting the purchasing power of the median wage but certainly the lesser prices of imported goods do not compensate for nations' trade deficits' detriment to their numbers of jobs and their median wages.  These are reflected by lesser than otherwise GDPs. 

The purpose of the Import Certificate proposal would be to increase USA's numbers of jobs and median wage by reducing our trade deficit with no net federal budget expenditure.  I don't object to referring to this as a "tax" but it's not a source of net government revenue, it's an indirect but effective subsidy of USA's exported goods, and its entire direct costs would be passed on to USA purchasers and users of imported goods.

You're incorrect. It's not trade deficits but rather the median wage that I'm "hung up on" because I'm a populist.
I want the purchasing power of USA's median wage to be the greatest in the world.  If my grand children work for others, I want their labor to be well compensated.  If others work for my grandchildren, I want their employees' wages and salaries to be well compensated for a very selfish reason.  Employee's of labors' worth are very much dependent upon the worth or failure to efficiently manage their managers who in turn manage their laborers.  The level of expenditure's for expensive labor is generally critical to enterprises' success or failure.

Enterprises of high wage labor nations earn shares of larger economic pies and everyone benefits more.
Enterprises of lesser wage labor nations earn greater shares of lesser economic pies and although they have higher profit margins their total profits and everyone elses must make do with less than otherwise.

In a high wage nation the efficient or inefficient utilization of an expensive resource, (use of labor) is critical to enterprises' success and is thus well compensated.  Employers can squander the efforts of cheap less worth labor with much less concern of the effects upon the enterprises' profitability.

I recall the Bud Abbot & Lou Costello skit regarding this concept.
Abbot:  "Get this!! I'm the boss and you're nothing!  You got that!  I'm boss, you're nothing.
Costello: Shrugs.  "Sure I get it. You're the boss over nothing.

Employers that demean their employees or government that demean their citizens cannot do so without also demeaning themselves.  That's why I'm a populist.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 24, 2013, 04:30:40 AM
Solar, we may disagree as to the extent of the multi factors affecting the purchasing power of the median wage but certainly the lesser prices of imported goods do not compensate for nations' trade deficits' detriment to their numbers of jobs and their median wages.  These are reflected by lesser than otherwise GDPs. 

The purpose of the Import Certificate proposal would be to increase USA's numbers of jobs and median wage by reducing our trade deficit with no net federal budget expenditure.  I don't object to referring to this as a "tax" but it's not a source of net government revenue, it's an indirect but effective subsidy of USA's exported goods, and its entire direct costs would be passed on to USA purchasers and users of imported goods.

You're incorrect. It's not trade deficits but rather the median wage that I'm "hung up on" because I'm a populist.
I want the purchasing power of USA's median wage to be the greatest in the world.  If my grand children work for others, I want their labor to be well compensated.  If others work for my grandchildren, I want their employees' wages and salaries to be well compensated for a very selfish reason.  Employee's of labors' worth are very much dependent upon the worth or failure to efficiently manage their managers who in turn manage their laborers.  The level of expenditure's for expensive labor is generally critical to enterprises' success or failure.

Enterprises of high wage labor nations earn shares of larger economic pies and everyone benefits more.
Enterprises of lesser wage labor nations earn greater shares of lesser economic pies and although they have higher profit margins their total profits and everyone elses must make do with less than otherwise.

In a high wage nation the efficient or inefficient utilization of an expensive resource, (use of labor) is critical to enterprises' success and is thus well compensated.  Employers can squander the efforts of cheap less worth labor with much less concern of the effects upon the enterprises' profitability.

I recall the Bud Abbot & Lou Costello skit regarding this concept.
Abbot:  "Get this!! I'm the boss and you're nothing!  You got that!  I'm boss, you're nothing.
Costello: Shrugs.  "Sure I get it. You're the boss over nothing.

Employers that demean their employees or government that demean their citizens cannot do so without also demeaning themselves.  That's why I'm a populist.

Respectfully, Supposn

You're like a broken record on this, you ignore the reason we're in this mess as I pointed out, and throw all your faith behind an even bigger Govt scheme to fix what the Govt broke in the first place.

A tax, is a tax, is a tax, that's all this is, punishment for trade, that's what this boils down to.

Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2013, 10:48:28 AM
You're like a broken record on this, you ignore the reason we're in this mess as I pointed out, and throw all your faith behind an even bigger Govt scheme to fix what the Govt broke in the first place.
A tax, is a tax, is a tax, that's all this is, punishment for trade, that's what this boils down to.

Solar, I'm not opposed to trade.  (Excluding scarce or precious specifically named mineral materials integral to internationally traded goods), I'm generally opposed to tolerating our nation's annual trade deficits of goods.

I do not argue with your labeling the IC proposal as a tax.  But it's a tax only upon those who are directly responsible for a detrimental effect upon our economy,

The amount of the tax is proportional to the individual taxpayers' detriments to our economy;

it is not a source of net government revenue;

the amount of the tax to our individual and total taxpayers' are primarily market rather than government determinations.  Government is granted no discretion of policy with regard to this tax.  Assessing the approximate value of goods in the USA, expressed in U.S. dollars is a technical rather than a policy determination.

Solar, the purpose of this IC proposal is to significantly reduce our nation's annual trade deficits and thus almost entirely eliminate trade deficits' detrimental effect upon our numbers of jobs and median wage.
You have stated that you do not accept that trade deficits have such affects upon our economy.

Why are you then arguing as to the ability of this proposal to accomplish what you believe need not be accomplished?
Why are you not arguing your case in the thread entitled "Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation's GDPs?

If you correctly prevailed within this thread, it would only induce me to seek a method to reduce our trade deficit in an improved manner.   
If you correctly prevailed within the other, ("trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation's GDPs") thread, there's no need or purpose for further discussion in this matter.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 25, 2013, 04:01:04 AM
Solar, I'm not opposed to trade.  (Excluding scarce or precious specifically named mineral materials integral to internationally traded goods), I'm generally opposed to tolerating our nation's annual trade deficits of goods.

Let me stop you right there. Do even have a clue as to why these minerals are so hard to come by?
Let me give you a hint. It's the very same Govt you want to entrust with the power to further screw up the free mkt by taxing the Hell out of it, this very same Govt has done it's best to stop rare earth minerals from being mined in the US.

QuoteI do not argue with your labeling the IC proposal as a tax.  But it's a tax only upon those who are directly responsible for a detrimental effect upon our economy,

Either you are purposefully obfuscating, or don't realize that all taxes are paid by the end user, so it's a tax/punishment to shape social behavior in the US.
That is illegal under the Constitution.

QuoteThe amount of the tax is proportional to the individual taxpayers' detriments to our economy;

it is not a source of net government revenue;

Stop it!!! There is no separating the two.

Quotethe amount of the tax to our individual and total taxpayers' are primarily market rather than government determinations.  Government is granted no discretion of policy with regard to this tax.  Assessing the approximate value of goods in the USA, expressed in U.S. dollars is a technical rather than a policy determination.

Supposn, did you just fall off the turnip truck?
Step back and read what you just wrote, and with all honesty, tell me you really believe that crap.
Note: we have two hundred years of evidence to the contrary.

QuoteSolar, the purpose of this IC proposal is to significantly reduce our nation's annual trade deficits and thus almost entirely eliminate trade deficits' detrimental effect upon our numbers of jobs and median wage.
You have stated that you do not accept that trade deficits have such affects upon our economy.

Why are you then arguing as to the ability of this proposal to accomplish what you believe need not be accomplished?
Why are you not arguing your case in the thread entitled "Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation's GDPs?

Because one thread on this nonsense will suffice.
Why aren't you posting in others threads in finance?
Because you actually see this as some kind of cure all for our economy, yet blinded by reality of external influences on the economy.
Govt is not the solution, Govt is the problem!

QuoteIf you correctly prevailed within this thread, it would only induce me to seek a method to reduce our trade deficit in an improved manner.   
If you correctly prevailed within the other, ("trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation's GDPs") thread, there's no need or purpose for further discussion in this matter.

Respectfully, Supposn

I need not prevail, it is commonsense that prevails, it is history that teaches the lesson, it is up to you to connect the dots to see the real result of Govt interference.

Take a moment and watch Atlas Shrugs, seriously, will you do that? Then get back to me, there are two parts to the movie, third on it's way, but you only need watch the first in the series to get the point, or all three if you like it..

So take a break and watch it, it is very well done and very entertaining.
I'll wait for your opinion.

Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2013, 06:50:32 AM
Let me stop you right there. Do even have a clue as to why these minerals are so hard to come by?
Let me give you a hint. It's the very same Govt you want to entrust with the power to further screw up the free mkt by taxing the Hell out of it, this very same Govt has done it's best to stop rare earth minerals from being mined in the US.

Solar, your contention is that there are known commercially exploitable rare earth mineral deposits in the United States but the government has hindered their extraction?
I wish that there were such known USA deposits; but there ain't.

It's conceivable that congressional conservatives may have been sufficiently "penny foolish" as to deny any funding for basic pure research that might (as a casual byproduct) reveal a clue as to how we could produce artificial substitute materials that might in the future serve as commercially justified substitutes for rare earth ores.

Wealth and the opportunity to obtain additional wealth are undeniably relentless powers that will not be denied.
If it's financially justified to apply research efforts and resources to produce artificial rare earth substitutes, it's reasonable to assume many government supported universities and other nonprofit enterprises and commercial enterprises are currently engaged in doing just that.  The consequential profits realized by such discoveries are too great to be ignored.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2013, 06:50:32 AM... Either you are purposefully obfuscating, or don't realize that all taxes are paid by the end user, so it's a tax/punishment to shape social behavior in the US.
That is illegal under the Constitution.

Solar, the IC proposal would not, and is not drafted to modify "social behavior". 
If congress passed the proposal for transferable ICs, it would be that they were recognizing that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS am immediate detriment to our nation's numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within less than otherwise annual GDPs.

If it's a "tax", it is similar to a narrow sales tax or a broad tariff and it taxes only those that directly acted in a manner that to some extent was detrimental to our economy, the tax upon each individual is approximately proportional to the individual's contribution to that detrimental effect, and additionally the amount of the tax is primarily market rather than government determined.
The "tax" remedies the detriment in part by indirectly but effectively subsidizing USA's exports.

Precisely how do you determine that this law would be unconstitutional?   

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 25, 2013, 07:47:22 PM
Solar, your contention is that there are known commercially exploitable rare earth mineral deposits in the United States but the government has hindered their extraction?
I wish that there were such known USA deposits; but there ain't.

You do know that the name "Rare Earth" is a misnomer, right?
The earths crust is abundant with the material, Hell, a quick search of Yahoo is all it took to prove this point.

http://news.yahoo.com/radioactive-mountain-key-us-rare-earth-woes-172406798.html (http://news.yahoo.com/radioactive-mountain-key-us-rare-earth-woes-172406798.html)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-rare-earths-confirms-most-190200387.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-rare-earths-confirms-most-190200387.html)

QuoteIt's conceivable that congressional conservatives may have been sufficiently "penny foolish" as to deny any funding for basic pure research that might (as a casual byproduct) reveal a clue as to how we could produce artificial substitute materials that might in the future serve as commercially justified substitutes for rare earth ores.

And as I suspected, you think govt should somehow be responsible.

QuoteWealth and the opportunity to obtain additional wealth are undeniably relentless powers that will not be denied.
If it's financially justified to apply research efforts and resources to produce artificial rare earth substitutes, it's reasonable to assume many government supported universities and other nonprofit enterprises and commercial enterprises are currently engaged in doing just that.  The consequential profits realized by such discoveries are too great to be ignored.

Respectfully, Supposn

That's right, it's the place of private enterprise and the free mkt to find the answer, not the damn govt.

Quote from: Supposn on September 25, 2013, 08:24:33 PM
Solar, the IC proposal would not, and is not drafted to modify "social behavior". 
If congress passed the proposal for transferable ICs, it would be that they were recognizing that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS am immediate detriment to our nation's numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within less than otherwise annual GDPs.

If it's a "tax", it is similar to a narrow sales tax or a broad tariff and it taxes only those that directly acted in a manner that to some extent was detrimental to our economy, the tax upon each individual is approximately proportional to the individual's contribution to that detrimental effect, and additionally the amount of the tax is primarily market rather than government determined.
The "tax" remedies the detriment in part by indirectly but effectively subsidizing USA's exports.

Precisely how do you determine that this law would be unconstitutional?   

Respectfully, Supposn

Since when is manipulating buying preferences by the Govt not "social behavior"?
You can spin all you want, but that's exactly one of two objectives behind this plan, to rise Govt revenue, "TAX" and to direct buying habits through "social behavior" of higher priced imported goods.

Supposn, quit lying to yourself, this is a tax devised to boost internal buying of products made in the US.

Do you really think I'm that stupid? I find this discussion extremely insulting to my intellect, I'm done.

So lar, I stated wealth and the opportunity to obtain additional wealth are undeniably relentless powers that will not be denied.
If it's financially justified to apply research efforts and resources to produce artificial rare earth substitutes, it's reasonable to assume many government supported universities and other nonprofit enterprises and commercial enterprises are currently engaged in doing just that.  The consequential profits realized by such discoveries are too great to be ignored.

Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2013, 08:35:58 PM... That's right, it's the place of private enterprise and the free mkt to find the answer, not the damn govt.

Thus we can logically conclude that USA commercial enterprises have not mined and refined rare earth ore because we lack such known deposits or despite it being considered a rare earth material, it's global market price and/or its availability in known commercially exploitable quantities and concentrations within the USA does not justify such mining enterprises within the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar, I stated it's conceivable that congressional conservatives may have been sufficiently "penny foolish" as to deny any funding for basic pure research that might (as a casual byproduct) reveal a clue as to how we could produce artificial substitute materials that might in the future serve as commercially justified substitutes for rare earth ores'.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2013, 08:35:58 PMAnd as I suspected, you think govt should somehow be responsible.
That's right, it's the place of private enterprise and the free mkt to find the answer, not the damn govt.

But what should our federal government do if USA's privsate enterprised asre unwilling or unable to do it?
Rwespectfully, Supposn

Refer to:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41744.pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41744.pdf)
... "These are referred to as "rare" because although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. ...
... Additionally, some policymakers had expressed growing concern that the United States had lost
its domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical materials, and its implications for U.S. national security".
/////////////////////////////

http://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=328074 (http://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=328074)
" ... Expert testimony in the hearing focused on concerns that limited supplies of these substances in the United States could constrict technological advancement and economic growth ...
... The loss or disruption of the rare earth metals supply would be catastrophic ... in terms of price spikes, production volume and related supply chain disruptions that would drastically limit our ability to develop and manufacture our products," Brehm testified.  "Rare earth metals are simply a necessity for the development, manufacturing and advancement of Infinia's technology, as well as many other modern essentials. ..."
/////////////////////////////

What part of "I'm done" did you not understand?

I swear, and I mean this in an honest way.
I have never met someone so dense and unable to open their mind as you. People once believed the earth to be flat, people also claimed peak oil every decade since we started drilling.

And here you are making the very same assertions about rare earth minerals, and just like the morons touting peak oil, and that corn ethanol production over the detriment to our food supply and the environment, you want more Govt intrusion into dealing with an issue exclusive to the FREE MKT!

Supoosn, pull your head out of Govts ass, let the free mkt run the country, rather than a bunch of ignorant bureaucrats meddling, only to make a bad situation worse.

Where do you get the idea that a bunch of morons that have no concept of business, no idea of how mkts work, or effect the lives of people working in these fields, have any business dictating results?
These people you put so much faith in, went to school to be taught by other idiots that have no idea how mkts work either, they were so called Govt experts when they were hired, they're disconnected from reality, they teach future bureaucrats how Govt works, and leave these students ignorant of free mkt principles.

Govt was never supposed to interfere with the free mkt, it's job is to merely set rules within to work, but here you are advocating the very interference our Founders warned about.

I view your thinking as very detrimental to the country as a whole, a person willing to put undying faith into a faceless bureaucracy, faith in people he has neither met, nor heard of.
That my friend, is what socialists do, that is also the beginning of the end, the next step is communism.
Think about that long and hard.

That is just plain stupid!


Respectfully Solar

Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Since when is manipulating buying preferences by the Govt not "social behavior"?
You can spin all you want, but that's exactly one of two objectives behind this plan, to rise Govt revenue, "TAX" and to direct buying habits through "social behavior" of higher priced imported goods.

Supposn, quit lying to yourself, this is a tax devised to boost internal buying of products made in the US.
Do you really think I'm that stupid? I find this discussion extremely insulting to my intellect, I'm done.

Solar, the IC proposal would not be a net source of Federal revenue; (which is why I do agree but will not quibble with your labeling it the IC proposal as a tax).
As I've often stated, the proposal is drafted to reduce if not eliminate USA's annual trade deficits of goods assessed values and this is would modify USA purchasers financial choices to adjust to the change in our global trade policy laws.  I would suppose most people would describe that as inducing modifications of our national financial or economic behaviors rather than our social behavior but the label is inconsequential to this topic.

You write as if this information was not openly stated and has been a hidden agenda that you recently uncovered.  That simply is not the case and regardless of whatever label you choose to put upon its purpose, this IC proposal is not unconstitutional.

Your contentions regarding it constitutionality is without merit.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar, I stated regardless of the consequences due to any other entities (including the federal government), do or fail to do, regardless of global currency exchange rates, USA' economy would be better than otherwise if it had enacted this proposed import Certificate policy.

I'm among those that contend due to the transferable IC policy the economic improvement would be significant.  But if it were less than significant, the fact that it's a net improvement justifies its enactment.

Quote from: Solar on September 23, 2013, 06:20:49 AM... That's an emotional argument, not one based in reality. ...

Solar, I believe my statements rather than yours' are generally of superior accuracy and logic. 

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 29, 2013, 07:38:57 AM
Solar, I stated regardless of the consequences due to any other entities (including the federal government), do or fail to do, regardless of global currency exchange rates, USA' economy would be better than otherwise if it had enacted this proposed import Certificate policy.

I'm among those that contend due to the transferable IC policy the economic improvement would be significant.  But if it were less than significant, the fact that it's a net improvement justifies its enactment.

Solar, I believe my statements rather than yours' are generally of superior accuracy and logic. 

Respectfully, Supposn

Of course you do, you live in a bubble of belief in big Govt.
As evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge my points.

Here is my attempt to put some sanity and hopefully clarity into the discussion.

Solar you shouldn't buy into the progressive liberal union-backed propaganda about trade deficits (normally China is the target) being the source of reduced wages.  Please understand there is "no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to economics".  The only way to increase a nations wealth or an individuals wealth is to INCREASE THE VALUE OF WHAT IS PRODUCED PERIOD.  If you think you see a method of getting a free lunch look again, because you invariably aren't taking into account all the implications of the policy you profess.

You are BOTH wrong about IC's.  IC's are not a tax or tariff.  They go further than a tariff.  They are out-and-out trade barriers similar to only allowing 12,000 cars per year be imported like the Japanese used to do.  Only in this case there is no distinction as to the product restricted.  Total net trade (based in dollars) is restricted.

The foreign exchanges already handle trade deficits in the most efficient manner possible.  They are truly free markets in spite of the numerous attempts by foreign governments to circumvent the free lunch law historically.  They are also the largest markets in the history of mankind and amount to trade on the order of hundreds to TRILLIONS of dollars a year.  They are hundreds upon hundreds of times as large as the oil markets which really aren't as significant as many think.

Trade deficits aren't bad for the economy or a nations wealth whatsoever.

Quote from: LibDave on October 11, 2013, 10:10:54 AM
Here is my attempt to put some sanity and hopefully clarity into the discussion.

Solar you shouldn't buy into the progressive liberal union-backed propaganda about trade deficits (normally China is the target) being the source of reduced wages.  Please understand there is "no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to economics".  The only way to increase a nations wealth or an individuals wealth is to INCREASE THE VALUE OF WHAT IS PRODUCED PERIOD.  If you think you see a method of getting a free lunch look again, because you invariably aren't taking into account all the implications of the policy you profess.

You are BOTH wrong about IC's.  IC's are not a tax or tariff.  They go further than a tariff.  They are out-and-out trade barriers similar to only allowing 12,000 cars per year be imported like the Japanese used to do.  Only in this case there is no distinction as to the product restricted.  Total net trade (based in dollars) is restricted.

The foreign exchanges already handle trade deficits in the most efficient manner possible.  They are truly free markets in spite of the numerous attempts by foreign governments to circumvent the free lunch law historically.  They are also the largest markets in the history of mankind and amount to trade on the order of hundreds to TRILLIONS of dollars a year.  They are hundreds upon hundreds of times as large as the oil markets which really aren't as significant as many think.

Trade deficits aren't bad for the economy or a nations wealth whatsoever.

I don't know what you read, but you'd have to start from the beginning, I think you saw something out of context.
I am completely against any and all govt interference, ICs, taxes (same thing) tariffs, or any barrier to free trade.

My bad.  I meant supposn but typed solar.  Brain fart.  Content was correct though.

Quote from: LibDave on October 11, 2013, 06:32:30 PM
My bad.  I meant supposn but typed solar.  Brain fart.  Content was correct though.

:biggrin:
I agree, you were spot on.

Quote from: LibDave on October 11, 2013, 10:10:54 AM
... Trade deficits aren't bad for the economy or a nations wealth whatsoever.

Lib Dave, the thread
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg141948/#msg141948 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg141948/#msg141948)
is devoted to the contention, "Annual trade deficits are always an immediate detrimental to their nations' GDPs".  If you can support your statement, "Trade deficits aren't bad for the economy or a nations wealth whatsoever" with a logical argument, that's the thread to do it in.

{I would point out that it would have to be a logical argument.  An argument based only upon historical statistics would not be acceptable if we cannot agree upon which is cause or effect).

Within this thread I argue that ICs are the superior method of reducing a nation's trade deficit.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: LibDave on October 11, 2013, 10:10:54 AM
Here is my attempt to put some sanity and hopefully clarity into the discussion.

Solar you shouldn't buy into the progressive liberal union-backed propaganda about trade deficits (normally China is the target) being the source of reduced wages.  Please understand there is "no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to economics".  The only way to increase a nations wealth or an individuals wealth is to INCREASE THE VALUE OF WHAT IS PRODUCED PERIOD.  If you think you see a method of getting a free lunch look again, because you invariably aren't taking into account all the implications of the policy you profess.

You are BOTH wrong about IC's.  IC's are not a tax or tariff.  They go further than a tariff.  They are out-and-out trade barriers similar to only allowing 12,000 cars per year be imported like the Japanese used to do.  Only in this case there is no distinction as to the product restricted.  Total net trade (based in dollars) is restricted.

The foreign exchanges already handle trade deficits in the most efficient manner possible.  They are truly free markets in spite of the numerous attempts by foreign governments to circumvent the free lunch law historically.  They are also the largest markets in the history of mankind and amount to trade on the order of hundreds to TRILLIONS of dollars a year.  They are hundreds upon hundreds of times as large as the oil markets which really aren't as significant as many think. ...

Lib Dave, for nations experiencing chronic trade deficits, their annual assessed values of production would increase more than otherwise if they adopted a transferable Import Certificate, (IC) global trade policy.  Furthermore their sum of aggregate imports plus exports would also increase more than otherwise due to an IC policy.

An IC policy is not "pure" free trade but it's certainly market rather than government driven and its pure free enterprise.
It limits the nation's global imports of goods to the assessed values of its global exports but there are no limits upon its exports.
It does "cap" the detrimental affects upon the IC nations' global trade due to any deliberate or inadvertent foreign nations' trade advantages due to their lesser purchasing powers, or exchange rates of currency or discriminatory practices contrary to our nation's trade interests.  It does so regardless of the IC's nations' government's unwillingness or inability to defend their own enterprises within or beyond their nation's borders.

Due to the method by which the nation eliminates its trade deficit of goods, it increases the IC nation's numbers of jobs and the purchasing power of the nation's medial wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

You propose a centralized regulatory fix for a problem which doesn't really exist making matters worse.  The purpose of the foreign exchange markets is to correctly evaluate currencies.  In this manner, trade deficits are eliminated in a market approach.  Currencies are a commodity with some notable differences.

Let's look at how it should work in a free market situation.  To simplify things, we will assume all trade with other nations is balanced with an imbalance only between the US and China.  Let's say the US has a trade imbalance with China (not a stretch).  This will result in a reduction in the value of the dollar.  Chinese goods will become more expensive in terms of dollars to US consumers.  US goods will become cheaper in terms of Yuan to Chinese consumers.  Trade will then fall back in line.  It is a negative feedback system and in as much results in stability.

A change in currency ratio should be the result of a change in the production value of the goods produced by that nation in relation to another (assuming similar changes in the money supply).  Again the only real way to improve standard of living long term is to increase per capita production.

A method of temporarily altering this negative feedback system does exist.  China can refuse to utilized the dollars they receive.  They can also buy up any extra dollars printed by the US or put onto the Forex by other nations.  By hoarding dollars they effectively circumvent (more precisely delay) the feedback system, allowing the dollar to maintain its value.  A situation will exist where the market exchange rate of the dollar is well above its real value were the Chinese NOT pegging the currency.

Quote from: LibDave on October 18, 2013, 01:37:37 PM
You propose a centralized regulatory fix for a problem which doesn't really exist making matters worse.  The purpose of the foreign exchange markets is to correctly evaluate currencies.  In this manner, trade deficits are eliminated in a market approach.  Currencies are a commodity with some notable differences.

Let's look at how it should work in a free market situation.  To simplify things, we will assume all trade with other nations is balanced with an imbalance only between the US and China.  Let's say the US has a trade imbalance with China (not a stretch).  This will result in a reduction in the value of the dollar.  Chinese goods will become more expensive in terms of dollars to US consumers.  US goods will become cheaper in terms of Yuan to Chinese consumers.  Trade will then fall back in line.  It is a negative feedback system and in as much results in stability.

A change in currency ratio should be the result of a change in the production value of the goods produced by that nation in relation to another (assuming similar changes in the money supply).  Again the only real way to improve standard of living long term is to increase per capita production.

A method of temporarily altering this negative feedback system does exist.  China can refuse to utilized the dollars they receive.  They can also buy up any extra dollars printed by the US or put onto the Forex by other nations.  By hoarding dollars they effectively circumvent (more precisely delay) the feedback system, allowing the dollar to maintain its value.  A situation will exist where the market exchange rate of the dollar is well above its real value were the Chinese NOT pegging the currency.

Well said.
He starts with a false premise. "Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median" By raising taxes.
Now how bassackwards is that, you never increase productivity, or wealth by raising taxes.

Chinese manipulation of the dollar results in Chinese goods remaining very cheap to purchase with dollars.  Americans will continue to buy Chinese goods and the trade deficit will continue or even grow.  This obviously causes higher unemployment in the US and increased employment in China while the situation continues.  So yes I agree, "Annual trade deficits are always an immediate detrimental to their nations' GDPs", but only because you stipulated the word "immediate".

In the long run trade deficits are a boon to our economy.  It is a "broken window" fallacy to look only at the immediate more visible implications of a policy while failing to identify the less visible and perhaps even longer term implications.  Until you can return all variables back into congruence you can't analyze the net affect.

This is very similar to the "broken window" fallacy of Keynesian economics.  Of course it is an immediate boon to the economy to deficit spend, just as it is an immediate boon to my standard of living to go out and borrow and spend like a drunken sailor.  But to look at my new cars, fur coats, nights out on the town and say, "Gee David is so smart for borrowing that money.  Look how much better off he is!!!" is a fallacy.  You can't determine the full impact until the situation is returned to a balanced financial position with that had I chosen not to borrow.  What you find is after paying back the debt plus interest and return to a similar financial position I am WORSE off.

Liberals profess Keynesian economics like it is the holy grail and incorrectly attribute the success of Reaganomics to Keynesian policy.  It was much more than that.  The other problem with Keynesian economics is governments NEVER pay the debt back in good times.  This is equivalent to the drunken sailor continuing to commit financial Hari Kari until he can no longer pay even the interest, can't get future loans, and starves.  Keynes himself admitted in discussions with Hayek before his death he got it wrong.

Now back to the trade deficit with China.  It may seem China is getting a free lunch.  But if you think about what they are doing you will see otherwise.  They are continuing to accept dollars for much more than they are actually worth.  They are sending us an overwhelming amount of goods at ridiculously low prices and accepting almost worthless dollars as if they were made of gold.

The myopia of this policy should be obvious to anyone.  It's like you trading my tricycle for your Rolls Royce after you have artificially increased the value of my tricycle so they are equivalent.  Worse still, these dollars continue to pile up in the Chinese reserve.  They can't get rid of them.  If they do the value of the dollar will finally plummet to a realistic level and they will lose their arses as they've been stocking up those same dollars for years.  But if they can't spend them, what good are they.  Eventually they have to give up the free lunch and start spending them.  When this occurs the fallacy of their policy will be all too apparent as what they gave for them won't compare to what they get back.

During the interim it may appear the US is taking a hit.  We are taking an immediate but temporary hit to our employment rate (especially in the manufacturing sector).  You can't compete with 1.4 Billion Chinese working for 5$/10 hour day.  Imagine what is going to happen when their workers find out what 5$ is really worth.  We circumvent much of this impact with large monetary quantitative easing (borrowing by printing Treasuries/$).  They have little choice but to go snatch them up before they effect the value of their holdings.

But their is more.  Even though we tend to notice the hurricane which has ripped through our manufacturing sector, one needs to appreciate the less noticeable cost of goods.  The result of this Chinese economic Hari Kari is to provide lots of cheap stuff for our consumers to buy with all those printed $.

Why does China do this?  Because they MUST have employment now to build their economy and maintain control over their population.  China is a disaster  environmentally, economically, socially, you name it.  They have 100's of different dialects and riots on a daily basis.  Loans are given out by a central committee based on the amount of employment the creditor promises, not on the economic feasibility of what they produce.  Imagine going to the bank and saying, "Hey I want a loan to manufacture sand".  The first and only question the bank asks you is, "How many people will you employ?"  When you reply 1000 they say, "That's not good enough.  We want you to employ 3000 instead because someone else has promised to employ 2500 people."  Even though you can't make a profit employing so many and there is no market for that much sand you agree.  Later when you can't repay the loan the central committee just gives you another loan so you can pay the first one back asking you to employ even more people.  Fully over 72% of the loans to Chinese banks are non-performing loans (NPL's).

We don't need to fear China.  Sooner or later the jobs will come back 3-fold when they go to spend those dollars.  If they don't spend them EVER what good are they?  Japan did the same thing some years back by the way.  Look at the mess Japan is in.  In fact China is the only thing saving Japan.  It gives Japan a means of getting rid of their dollars which resulted from an identical myopic attempt to get a free lunch.

When Bush wanted the Chinese to forego the exercise of their veto in the UN and approve our intervention in Iraq he didn't send Colin Powell (Secretary of State), he sent the Treasury Secretary.  Why?  The Treasury Secretary stopped by Japan and got them to agree not to dump $ on the market before meeting with China.

Remember too, when I go buy something for 1/10th the price it should cost me because China is practically GIVING us stuff, I keep the other 9/10ths of the price and pay an American a decent wage to cut my hair or wait on my table with the savings.  Our standard of living hasn't dropped a commensurate amount as a result.  In the future we will reap much more in return than otherwise would have been the case.

If you take it to extremes and let's say all of Mexico came here and performed the jobs and production of every single American for 1$ in total we would be crazy not to hire them and sit home for the total cost of the change in my couch.  Our production and standard of living would be virtually unchanged though we would have one hell of a time sitting home and partying.

Quote from: LibDave on October 18, 2013, 01:37:37 PM
You propose a centralized regulatory fix for a problem which doesn't really exist making matters worse. ...

Lib Dave, the Import Certificate proposal grants government no discretion of policy; it is market rather than government driven. (Approximate assessments of goods' values at USA ports, in USA dolars are technical rather than policy determinations.  The transferable IC proposal is not pure free trade but it is certainly pure free enterprise and it's certainly not government central planning.  All decisions are made by entreprenuers but imported goods cannot exceed the assessed values of our exported goods.

The global foreign exchange markets cannot remedy USA's loss of jobs and median wage due to foreign nations' inability or unwillingness to improve their median wages' purchasing powers.  I'm opposed to USA's altruistic foreign trade policy that has more consideration for foreign nations and little consideration for USA's salary and wage earners.

Under an Import Certificate policy, deliberate or inadvertent mischievous undermining of our global trade would be of greater harm to the perpetrators and of limited harm to our economy.  In all cases a notion that would otherwise suffer trade deficits of goods would derive net benefit from their adoption of a transferable Import Certificates policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

My point is, why would you want to?  We have a printing machine which prints pretty pictures of presidents on paper (P^4).  They have value X.  We also grow corn on the side and accept back these P^4 in exchange for our corn.  Your neighbor who produces Cars is going around buying up every instance of these P^4 to make them rare and drive up their value to 10X so we can purchase his automobiles for 1/10th the price.  In the meantime, we can purchase anything we want from our other neighbors for 1/10th the price too.  Now sure it makes it difficult to sell corn in the meantime as few people have these pieces of paper to purchase our corn.

Two things can happen in the future.

1.  Our car building neighbor can continue to hoard these P^4 forever.  In this case he will support our standard of living forever.

2.  Our car building neighbor will begin to buy things with the P^4 in the future.  When he does so, he will find they purchase 1/10th of what he accepted them for and he has gone bankrupt because his wealth is based on worthless paper.  Our P^4 will return to their normal value and we will find ourselves back at work growing corn after having enjoyed a long hiatus.

Why fix this?  The free market works, why try anything else?  Let them suffer the consequences of attempting to circumvent the market to get a free lunch.

Understand deviating from free trade should be avoided at all costs.  To do otherwise, ALWAYS results in a broken window strategy.

When you engage in trade you ALWAYS benefit since what you get is worth more to you than what you give.  This applies to everything purchasable including your labor.  $ bills are nothing more than IOU's stating you will accept them back in exchange for something of yours (or someone else's) at a future date at an exchange rate (price) which will be negotiated at the time of the future purchase.

These IOU's serve two purposes.

1.  If the trader supplying the IOU (we'll call him the buyer though he is really just trading a different commodity) has nothing the trader of goods wants (we'll call him the seller) the seller knows he can return later and the IOU will be honored.  The value of the IOU will be negotiated when the future transaction is made.

So in one aspect these IOU's are merely a medium of exchange allowing you to buy and sell at different points in time.  There is some risk to the seller as anyone can attest who has accepted an IOU.  The seller accepts this risk on the basis the buyer will honor the debt and with the assumption the IOU will maintain it's value to a reasonable extent over time.  Time is money and money LITERALLY is time.

2.  If the buyer has nothing the seller wants the IOU allows the trade to proceed.  The seller accepts the IOU knowing the buyer has things a speculative third party wants.  So the seller knows he can purchase what he really wants from a third-party seller on another occasion who will use them to purchase what the current buyer has available.  So the original seller accepts the IOU's at higher value if the buyer has or produces "stuff" in great demand.

As more of these IOU's are printed their value decreases.  Therefore, a nation which engages in free trade and uses these IOU's freely (immediately purchasing goods from you and others with these IOU's) is assured their value will be maintained as little time has passed.

Chinese currency manipulation BENEFITS us because it allows us to engage in very favorable trades.  Sure it makes us temporarily sell fewer goods, but the favorable trade makes up for it.  When those IOU's are finally used the work will all come back to us only we will get the $ back at fair value.

You should be wary of hair-brained schemes which profess a means of circumventing free trade for WHATEVER reason --- real or imagined.  In every case you will find the scheme is nothing more than a "broken window" philosophy.

A "broken window" philosophy was made famous by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics in One Lesson".  He put forth an analogy where a young street urchin eyeing the pies and pastries in a baker's window decides to throw a brick through the bakery window and steal all the tasty goods on display.  As the young street urchin runs off down the street gobbling up what pastries he doesn't drop the baker rushes to the street.  The baker asks the passers-by (liberals) if they saw what transpired.  They reply, "Yes we did".  The baker asks if they will assist him in identifying the culprit.  They reply, "We most certainly will not!!!".

Perplexed the baker asks, "Why?"  They respond...

"Well you are going to have to pay the glass-maker to repair your window.  And you are also going to have to buy more flower from the miller.  The miller will have to buy more wheat from the farmer.  You will also need to buy more sugar from the merchant and he in turn will buy more sugar from the caner.  You will also need more coal for your ovens.  You may even have to hire a young apprentice to assist you in replenishing your pies.  You will have to employ 3000$ worth of labor.  Think of all the employment this young man has just created!!!!  We are going to give him a public service award."

Hazlitt then poses the question, "Has the urchin really created $3000 worth of employment?  Why or why not?"

In my next post I will provide the answer so don't read on until you figure it out for yourself.

The answer is quite subtle and may allude you.  Yet in your heart you know something isn't right with the analogy put forth by the passers-by.  The fallacy lies in the fact the passers-by are only identifying the positive and more apparent aspects of the urchin's conduct.

Realize the baker had been saving up the $3000 to buy his son books for school, a dress for his daughter, and dinner at a nice restaurant for his anniversary with his wife.  He now must spend this money to restore the situation back to what it was before the theft.  So for every $ in employment the urchin supposedly created an equal amount of employment was lost as the printer, seamstress, and waitress will be without work.

It is easy to see the employment which resulted from the urchin's actions.  Much more difficult to imagine the employment lost precisely because it was never allowed to exist.  The fact is, the world is poorer by a window, pies and pastries now, and poorer by books, dresses, and food after the situation is remedied.

Hazlitt later goes on to completely dismantle every aspect of liberal\progressive economics for the fallacies they are by clearly identifying them as examples of the "broken window" philosophy.  "Economics in One Lesson" is available online in pdf format for free.  It is a great read, very short with little to no mathematics.  Just clear undeniable logical arguments which teach everything you need to know about the fallacies of liberal economic philosophy attempting to circumvent the free market.

He even takes apart the more popular forms of liberanomics such as spending money on infrastructure.  For instance the government takes money from one group of citizens and uses the money to build roads and bridges.  They then attempt to obfuscate the public to attain votes saying, "Look at all the jobs we created as they point to the construction workers".  But they ignore the fact the money used to hire those workers came from the people who EARNED it --- not them.  And now that they have had their money confiscated they can't buy what they otherwise could have so autoworkers and others lose their jobs.  Now if we truly need the road or bridge rather than cars that's one thing.  But to argue the politician created jobs is ludicrous.  This is just one of many liberal strategies Hazlitt debunks.  He does all of them.

My ears always go up when I hear a politician propose some hair-brained scheme to create jobs rather than increase production.  Joseph Biden has made two such statements in particular which made me laugh until my stomach hurt.

Looking over Obama's shoulders as the POTUS signed the stimulus package into law he stated, "Congratulations Mr. President, you just created a million jobs.  3 million more to go".  LMFAO.

Later it was discovered the stimulus had created only a small fraction of that number.  Private sector jobs being shed as a result of the stimulus were 4X the rate created in the public sector.  He visited one of the stimulus job sites employing less than 1000 workers at a cost of $1.25 Billion (> $1.125 Million per job!!!) stating, "Is there any way you could hire 3000 workers to build that same bridge?"  LMFAO.

What an idiot.  I've never heard a CEO tell his stockholders his plan for the future is to hire more people to create the same amount of stuff.

Another popular program even among many Conservatives misled by their broken window twisted logic is the Student Aid programs.  The student aid programs do not benefit students AT ALL.  They are a subsidy for the higher education industry.  Every year the universities get together and decide how much to raise tuition.  Every year since the programs inception the result has been directly related to the increase in funding for the Student Aid program.  Universities know prospective students bring with them these subsidies from the government.  The result is an artificial increase in the demand for higher education.  If it weren't for the Student Aid program you wouldn't NEED a grant or a student loan to go to college.

So much so the benefit of a college education is no longer commensurate with the value of that education once you graduate.  Even worse, there is incentive for colleges to offer curriculum which lacks demand.  Students of little prospect can take courses in basket weaving all paid for with grants.  The students don't care as the money is granted and the government doesn't care because it isn't their money and it gets votes.  Some of the more naïve students will actually get loans for these virtually worthless degrees, causing them untold hardships and often default after graduation.

I have an acquaintance of mine who is receiving $15,000 in grants and $7,000 in loans every year for a degree offered online.  The curriculum?  The History of Ancient Greek Gods.  Now I'm not one to poo-poo the value of an education, but I don't hesitate to guess he and the 268 other students enrolled in the program at just this one "university" far exceed the demand for such drivel.

Other funny examples:  As part of the stimulus package the government spent $25 million refurbishing the trails in the Grand Canyon National Park.  Having been to the Grand Canyon on several occasions and noted the trails were merely dirt paths a reporter decided to investigate.  The money was spent hiring young 16-20 year olds at 15$/hour after having purchased dozens of 4-wheeled off-road vehicles (made by Kawasaki lol).  They were employed to drive up and down the trails dragging chain-linked fences in a manner similar to how you smooth out the infield on a baseball diamond.  35 such free wheeling teenagers were employed.  Watching the video of them driving around playing 4-wheeler tag with the fences would have been hilarious if not for the tragedy in the repercussions due to lost jobs.

In 1982 POTUS Reagan questioned an item in the budget giving the railroad industry $5 Billion a year in reimbursement costs for diesel locomotives.  No one could explain why it was in the budget.  Upon further investigation it was learned it had been included in the budget since 1933.  Reagan demanded a further investigation.  Some time later the reason for the original expenditure was determined.

In the early 1930's a new diesel-electric locomotive was invented which was rightly seen as a tremendous boon for the railroad industry.  It was much more efficient, produced less pollutants, was cheaper to maintain, more easily refueled, had a longer life span and provided more power on demand.  It had the additional "benefit" that it didn't require as many railroad workers to support.  There was no need for a fireman to shovel coal into a furnace and the locomotive maintenance mechanics needed were a small fraction.

FDR decided it would be of great benefit to get these locomotives into service and replace the outdated steam locomotives as soon as possible.  A government subsidy reimbursing the railroad industry for the cost of the locomotives seemed just the thing.

Of course the liberals didn't see the reduction in labor needs as a benefit nor did the railroad workers union.  They lobbied for relief and got amendments to the bill included.  These amendments stipulated the railroads not be allowed to reduce the number of workers required to operate or maintain the new locomotives.  Regulations were put in place requiring the railroads to employ the same ratio of maintenance workers to support the new locomotives and even required the railroads to employ a fireman to sit in the locomotive alongside the engineer at any time the engine was operated.

It didn't stop there.  Other companies who supplied the shovels and asbestos suits for the firemen received relief due to the loss of business.  Railroad regulations were put in place requiring the railroad to purchase shovels and uniforms for these phantom fireman to hold while they sat pretending to shovel coal into a diesel engine.  The coal industry also received relief requiring the railroads purchase the equivalent BTU's of coal to that purchased in kerosene (diesel).  This coal was to be given to 3rd world countries (continued until WWII).

So for 50 years we spent $5 Billion per year to pay people to pretend to work or otherwise supply that which was no longer needed.  The liberals succeeded only in ensuring no benefit was ever obtained from such a marvelous invention.  The cost was experienced through the loss of untold production of goods which would have otherwise come to fruition and benefited many.

Other make work project of the era abound.  TVA was tasked with digging away an entire mountain as one of FDR's make work programs.  Six years later (and many billions of dollars in today's money) when the work was complete it was seen as a tragedy as so many would no longer be employed.  The solution the liberals came up with was to pay them to fill it all back in.  The Big Dig became the Big Hill.

All the while many times that number lost their jobs due to continued and accelerated loss of work as taxpayers had to endure 90% effective tax rates.  No one had any money left to buy what was really needed and not produced due to labor shortages digging holes in the ground.

Sound familiar?

Quote from: LibDave on October 18, 2013, 03:05:11 PM
... If you take it to extremes and let's say all of Mexico came here and performed the jobs and production of every single American for 1$ in total we would be crazy not to hire them and sit home for the total cost of the change in my couch.  Our production and standard of living would be virtually unchanged though we would have one hell of a time sitting home and partying.

Lib Dave, your extreme example would not bring us to the "point of upset".
The "point of upset" due to cheaper imported goods occurs when the aggregate displacement of labor due to our trade deficit do not in aggregate compensate for USA's wage and salary earning families for trade deficit's detrimental effect upon our net numbers of jobs and our median wage's purchasing power.
USA's trade deficit of goods has brought us beyond that point of upset.

Nations' imported production supporting products can mitigate their trade deficit's immediate detrimental effects upon their GDPs.
It is also conceivable for a nation's laborers' aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit's detriment to their GDP.  Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.

Unfortunately the USA's trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and we have not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills to the extent of eliminating our trade deficit of goods' net detrimental effects occurring each year in excess of the past half century.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 20, 2013, 08:45:20 AM
USA's trade deficit of goods has brought us beyond that point of upset.

Evidently it hasn't as US consumers continue to buy more from them.

Quote from: Supposn on October 20, 2013, 08:45:20 AM
Nations' imported production supporting products can mitigate their trade deficit's immediate detrimental effects upon their GDPs.
It is also conceivable for a nation's laborers' aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit's detriment to their GDP.  Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.

Unfortunately the USA's trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and we have not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills to the extent of eliminating our trade deficit of goods' net detrimental effects occurring each year in excess of the past half century.

That would be wonderful, I hope it happens.  Somehow I doubt it considering the abysmal failure of the nations liberally controlled education system.  Regardless, precluding some miracle of magical enlightenment among our labor force, I am still content with reaping the benefits of Chinese attempts to circumvent the free market.  Our buying power has not been diminished in the slightest as the continued trade deficit indicates.  This sustained buying power hasn't come as the result of increased production, it has come as a result of favorable trade of equal or greater value.  I think this a favorable situation without need of remedy.  To assert otherwise is ludicrous.

Suppose you are working to produce $10,000 in goods.  Then I come to you and state next year you only need work to produce $1,000 in goods but I will multiply the real purchasing value of every dollar you earn by 20.  According to your logic I should be demonized for my offer as it will reduce your workload.  You go further and state since you are now purchasing $20,000 in goods and only selling $1000 you are "approaching a point of upset".  What are you upset about?  With enemies like this who needs friends.  If we do reach a "point of upset" whereby our purchasing power is diminished I suggest we continue to print more money to send to the fools until they choke on them and wise up.  Only then should we stop and get back to work in return for those dollars at whatever fair value they have finally adjusted.  When we do they will collapse and stagnate just as Japan has done after realizing they gave us the fruits of 20 years labor for the paper sufficient to create a decent bonfire.

Lib Dave, exporters of USA good are entitled to request, (i.e. not required) their goods be assessed and to pay the federal fees to acquire transferable Import Certificates.  Those fees expected to be the minor portion of ICs' global market values.

Federal customs inspectors' assessments of goods approximate market values at USA's ports in U.S. dollars are technical rather than policy determinations.  Government is granted no policy discretion within this proposal.

This proposal provides no net federal revenue or expenditures.  The entire global open market prices of ICs are passed onto USA purchasers and users of imported goods. They pay for all federal assessing, IC issuing and administrative expenditures due to this policy.  The remainders of ICs' prices are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA's exported goods.  It is a market rather than government driven policy.

Your contentions opposing government spending to build and retain our infrastructures, the FDR administration, stimulus spending, the WPA, the CCC, our methods of supporting education or your broken window story, are not germane to this trade policy proposal.

I agree with those contending the IC policy would increase our numbers of jobs and our median wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Gee, if it's such a great idea, lets apply it to interstate trade, where one state is suffering because another state is out producing them.
Like sat Texas, because they have a source of cheap labor and Idaho has no access to this labor mkt, so Texas would have to pay an IC tax.
But wait, that means Idaho will as well, but wait, that means the employer will have to pay more per employee, oh but wait, they can pass it along to the end consumer.

WOW What a great idea, the consumer winds up paying another tax with absolutely ZERO benefit.

No matter how you spin it, you are attempting to circumvent the free market.  It will harm not help.  Subsidies don't work.  Trade restrictions don't work.  You are proposing heavy-handed bureaucratic intervention into the market which is GARAUNTEED to make matters worse.

You are also attempting to implement this abortion into every market imaginable based on your fallacious analysis there is a problem to be solved where none exists.  What is your problem with capitalism?  Why do you not appreciate free markets.  SOCIALISM doesn't work.  Give it up and find a viable economic model.

Quote from: LibDave on October 21, 2013, 04:55:20 AM
No matter how you spin it, you are attempting to circumvent the free market.  It will harm not help.  Subsidies don't work.  Trade restrictions don't work.  You are proposing heavy-handed bureaucratic intervention into the market which is GARAUNTEED to make matters worse.

You are also attempting to implement this abortion into every market imaginable based on your fallacious analysis there is a problem to be solved where none exists.  What is your problem with capitalism?  Why do you not appreciate free markets.  SOCIALISM doesn't work.  Give it up and find a viable economic model.

I have said those exact words nearly ten times throughout this thread, and his response is always the same, a convoluted mix of gibberish and obfuscation, never once addressing what I posted.

Quote from: Solar on October 21, 2013, 04:54:27 AM
Gee, if it's such a great idea, lets apply it to interstate trade, where one state is suffering because another state is out producing them.
Like sat Texas, because they have a source of cheap labor and Idaho has no access to this labor mkt, so Texas would have to pay an IC tax.
But wait, that means Idaho will as well, but wait, that means the employer will have to pay more per employee, oh but wait, they can pass it along to the end consumer.

WOW What a great idea, the consumer winds up paying another tax with absolutely ZERO benefit.

Solar, concerning your posted reply #252, refer to the reply entitled
" Financial / Economic competition between political jurisdictions. ",
which is reply #151 on: August 23, 2013, 06:36:50 AM of this discussion thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 03, 2013, 09:11:41 PM
Solar, concerning your posted reply #252, refer to the reply entitled
" Financial / Economic competition between political jurisdictions. ",
which is reply #151 on: August 23, 2013, 06:36:50 AM of this discussion thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why, can't you answer my question without some convoluted post?

Quote from: Supposn on December 03, 2013, 09:11:41 PM
Solar, concerning your posted reply #252, refer to the reply entitled
" Financial / Economic competition between political jurisdictions. ",
which is reply #151 on: August 23, 2013, 06:36:50 AM of this discussion thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on December 04, 2013, 11:00:57 AM
Why, can't you answer my question without some convoluted post?

Solar, I sympathize with your confusion.  You're unable to accept and unable to provide a logical argument to refute reply #151 of this thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 05, 2013, 02:26:14 PM
Quote from: Supposn on December 03, 2013, 09:11:41 PM
Solar, concerning your posted reply #252, refer to the reply entitled
" Financial / Economic competition between political jurisdictions. ",
which is reply #151 on: August 23, 2013, 06:36:50 AM of this discussion thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar, I sympathize with your confusion.  You're unable to accept and unable to provide a logical argument to refute reply #151 of this thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

Well that explains why in the Hell I couldn't find your thread by the named:
"Economic competition between political jurisdictions"
One doesn't exist.

If there is something you think makes your point, copy and paste it, I'm not doing your work for you, aside the fact most of your points are either extremely vague or make no sense whatsoever.

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2013, 03:34:02 PM
Well that explains why in the Hell I couldn't find your thread by the named:
"Economic competition between political jurisdictions"
One doesn't exist.

If there is something you think makes your point, copy and paste it, I'm not doing your work for you, aside the fact most of your points are either extremely vague or make no sense whatsoever.

Economic competition between political jurisdictions; (i.e. between the states).


Solar, reply #151 is a transcript of my reply to Mountainshield's tread entitled "Norway and the European Common Market".

My reply to Mountainshield was affirming Vat's method of sales tax administration because it better enables international trade across all political boundaries regardless of their internal taxing rates or policies.
It also alludes to the economic competition between political jurisdictions.
[Import Certificates are a proposed remedy for annual trade deficits are ALWAYS being an economic detriments' to their nations.   Reply #151 alluded that economic competition no less exists is between states as it does between nations].

To bind our United State together the drafters of the U.S. Constitution requires the states to subordinate whatever they believe is their economic self interest to the supreme federal jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 05, 2013, 08:10:24 PM


My reply to Mountainshield was affirming Vat's method of sales tax administration because it better enables international trade across all political boundaries regardless of their internal taxing rates or policies.

Prove it!!!

Quote from: Supposn on December 05, 2013, 08:10:24 PM
Economic competition between political jurisdictions; (i.e. between the states).


Solar, ... My reply to Mountainshield was affirming Vat's method of sales tax administration because it better enables international trade across all political boundaries regardless of their internal taxing rates or policies. ...

Refer to reply #48 of:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-(i-e-vat)/msg153676/#msg153676 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-(i-e-vat)/msg153676/#msg153676) .

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 06, 2013, 09:46:34 AM
Refer to reply #48 of:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-(i-e-vat)/msg153676/#msg153676 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-(i-e-vat)/msg153676/#msg153676) .

Respectfully, Supposn

Wrong! If you want to explain something, post it here, I have enough to do here, other than searching out and trying to decipher your point from another convoluted post.

Quote from: Supposn on December 06, 2013, 09:46:34 AM
Refer to reply #48 of:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-(i-e-vat)/msg153676/#msg153676 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-(i-e-vat)/msg153676/#msg153676) .

Respectfully, Supposn

One more person that has a problem with not using the quote function!

Quote from: Solar on December 06, 2013, 10:04:40 AM
Wrong! If you want to explain something, post it here, I have enough to do here, other than searching out and trying to decipher your point from another convoluted post.

Solar, I refer to links in order not to divert to remain on topic rather than moving to other sub-topics.  I try to respect the CPF group.  I understand that you're not challenged by my referral links but you assume them to be unworthy of your consideration.

I understand that your respect and/or your assessment of the opinions of others need not be mutually equitable.  I do not take it personally and do have a need to "preach to the quire".

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 10, 2013, 09:58:26 PM
Solar, I refer to links in order not to divert to remain on topic rather than moving to other sub-topics.  I try to respect the CPF group.  I understand that you're not challenged by my referral links but you assume them to be unworthy of your consideration.

I understand that your respect and/or your assessment of the opinions of others need not be mutually equitable.  I do not take it personally and do have a need to "preach to the quire".

Respectfully, Supposn

It's CHOIR, dolt.

Quote from: Supposn on December 10, 2013, 09:58:26 PM
Solar, I refer to links in order not to divert to remain on topic rather than moving to other sub-topics.  I try to respect the CPF group.  I understand that you're not challenged by my referral links but you assume them to be unworthy of your consideration.

I understand that your respect and/or your assessment of the opinions of others need not be mutually equitable.  I do not take it personally and do have a need to "preach to the quire".

Respectfully, Supposn

If you understand the forum so well, then you would know you don't use links to make your point, you post your point and own it, that's how this forum works, get it?

Now, if you have something you feel is important to your claim, then copy and paste it in your response, but don't expect anyone here to do your work for you by chasing down links.
This is not a request, understand?

Trade deficits and stolen foreign jobs is really used as nothing more than ad captandum hysteria. The "exporting" of jobs leads to, simply, cheaper goods. Technological innovation often removes jobs from the economy and drastically increases productivity.
Trade unions tried to ban the automobile because it killed buggy/carriage jobs. This purely emotional sentiment regarding former American industry is just resisting technological and economic evolution. The exporting of jobs increases American productivity and further relieves price burdens from consumers.

Quote from: Elephant In The Room on December 21, 2013, 05:54:59 PM
Trade deficits and stolen foreign jobs is really used as nothing more than ad captandum hysteria. The "exporting" of jobs leads to, simply, cheaper goods. Technological innovation often removes jobs from the economy and drastically increases productivity.
Trade unions tried to ban the automobile because it killed buggy/carriage jobs. This purely emotional sentiment regarding former American industry is just resisting technological and economic evolution. The exporting of jobs increases American productivity and further relieves price burdens from consumers.

If I remember right you also said that on another forum, although it has been some time.

Quote from: walkstall on December 21, 2013, 06:00:08 PM
If I remember right you also said that on another forum, although it has been some time.

Is he an LNF escapee?

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2013, 06:17:12 PM
Is he an LNF escapee?

Not sure but the post and name sounds familiar.  This is what happens when you have been on Political boards  for 20 years.    :lol:

Quote from: walkstall on December 21, 2013, 06:25:52 PM
Not sure but the post and name sounds familiar.  This is what happens when you have been on Political boards  for 20 years.    :lol:

I remember those olden days. You used to post messages by carving a piece of slate.

Transcription of  reply #266:

*Re: Economic competition between political jurisdictions; (i.e. between the states).
*« Reply #266 on: December 11, 2013, 06:14:41 AM »

*Quote from: Supposn on December 10, 2013, 09:58:26 PM
Solar, I refer to links in order not to divert, [but] to remain on topic rather than moving to other sub-topics.  I try to respect the CPF group.  I understand that you're not challenged by my referral links but you assume them to be unworthy of your consideration.

I understand that your respect and/or your assessment of the opinions of others need not be mutually equitable.  I do not take it personally and do have a need to "preach to the quire".

Respectfully, Supposn

[Quoted reply from: Solar on December 11]:
If you understand the forum so well, then you would know you don't use links to make your point, you post your point and own it, that's how this forum works, get it?

Now, if you have something you feel is important to your claim, then copy and paste it in your response, but don't expect anyone here to do your work for you by chasing down links.
This is not a request, understand?

////////////////////////////////////////
Solar, I regret that you consider clicking of a "referral link" as an additional burdensome task rather than as an attempt to reduce the volume of this discussion's space.
The major portion of my links are for quotes to my previous posts and /or direct or indirect responses to those previous posts.  Almost all other remaining links are composed of content that I co-authored or the author posted elsewhere and did not attribute to my previous writing.

[I.E. my links are directly and indirectly entirely derived from my authorship, and/or replies to my writing].

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 22, 2013, 05:37:49 AM
Transcription of  reply #266:

*Re: Economic competition between political jurisdictions; (i.e. between the states).
*« Reply #266 on: December 11, 2013, 06:14:41 AM »

*Quote from: Supposn on December 10, 2013, 09:58:26 PM
Solar, I refer to links in order not to divert, [but] to remain on topic rather than moving to other sub-topics.  I try to respect the CPF group.  I understand that you're not challenged by my referral links but you assume them to be unworthy of your consideration.

I understand that your respect and/or your assessment of the opinions of others need not be mutually equitable.  I do not take it personally and do have a need to "preach to the quire".

Respectfully, Supposn

[Quoted reply from: Solar on December 11]:
If you understand the forum so well, then you would know you don't use links to make your point, you post your point and own it, that's how this forum works, get it?

Now, if you have something you feel is important to your claim, then copy and paste it in your response, but don't expect anyone here to do your work for you by chasing down links.
This is not a request, understand?

////////////////////////////////////////
Solar, I regret that you consider clicking of a "referral link" as an additional burdensome task rather than as an attempt to reduce the volume of this discussion's space.
The major portion of my links are for quotes to my previous posts and /or direct or indirect responses to those previous posts.  Almost all other remaining links are composed of content that I co-authored or the author posted elsewhere and did not attribute to my previous writing.

[I.E. my links are directly and indirectly entirely derived from my authorship, and/or replies to my writing].

Respectfully, Supposn

Sorry, but I did not read that mess, if you expect a response, then learn the quote function.
To be quite honest, your posts have become a total waste of my time, your close minded approach to understanding capitalism is nothing short of immature and ignorant.
In short, quit wasting my time with your socialist nonsense!