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

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/

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