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

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

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

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

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

Economic competition between political jurisdictions.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Respectfully, Supposn

Comparison of tariffs and transferable Import Certificates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully to you and all other members, Supposn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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

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

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