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

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.