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

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://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
... "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
" ... 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