Why in the world would anyone want to pervert reality and consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?

No logical reason not to have confidence in a transferable import certificate policy?

Is that right?

Well we know that such a policy will end up reducing imports, acting as a sort of economy wide tariff. This will raise the price people will have to pay in order to continue consuming at the level they are accustomed.

Not only that but other nations tend to retaliate when tariffs are erected. And we know what that does to trade and the economy.

Whether or not the protection will result in a net benefit for the common man will depend on the quality of jobs that this intervention induces, versus the quality of jobs that it diminishes.

How that nets out is anyone's guess.

What I do know is that political allocations are generally always in the interest of the few, where as market outcomes are dictated by the tyranny of the masses of consumers.

So I tend to side with the more inclusive institution, as it is based in peace rather than force and is disciplined by market forces (profit and loss) where as the state has no such discipline. There is nothing keeping the state from achieving inefficient but politically popular outcomes. 

Trade is a problem facing the global economy. There is way too much protection in this funny brand of "free trade." After all how much free trade can exist in a bill thousands of pages long?

The transferable IC proposal's market not government driven.

Solar, exporters of U.S. goods cannot sell the Import Certificates they acquire if they price them beyond ICs' global market values.

Importers of foreign goods entering the USA will be unwilling to pay more than they can pass on to their buyers which are limited to how much additional costs USA's final purchasers of foreign goods will tolerate before the balk.

Importers of USA goods into foreign nation would also be well aware of IC's global market price and they will negotiate for lesser priced USA goods reflecting exporters' additional revenue due their reselling the ICs they acquire.

Conservatives talk of supply and demand and then deny that it's germane when they're confronted with it?  This proposed IC trade proposal is primarily market rather than government driven.

You object because despite other nation's laborers' lesser purchasing power, this proposal would increase USA's exports and additionally increase the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports?

Solar you're correct; there will be attempt to evade the purpose of the law; there will be corruption, there will be dishonesty.

Government is no different than the banking industry, or riverboat gamblers, or the military, or the church, or the American Medical association, or the exercise yard of our penitentiaries or any other gathering of people.   You' find corruption among rabies, judges, bookies, drug dealers, housewives and school teachers.
I speculate the proportion and extent of corruption within those population segments differ; but when a judge screws you, it's no different than the cards you get from a dishonest card dealer except probably the judges crime will be of greater cost to you.

I'm less mistrustful of explicitly drafted government laws and regulations created and enacted in the sunshine and publicly viewed. I greatly dread any (government or non-government) bureaucratic discretion of policy that directly or indirectly affect me and mine and create or perpetuate inequities that evolve from the exercising of such discretion.

Transferable import Certificate policy proposal's economically superior to our present global trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 17, 2013, 11:47:31 AM
Why in the world would anyone want to pervert reality and consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?

Toward Liberty, why would anyone believe it is a perversion of reality to consider USA's importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?
Currently aren't there many USA enterprises that perform both of those tasks?

Other industries have specialized sub-category enterprises or they may or may not establish separate bureaucracies for the differing tasks within their enterprise.  On the other hand they may distinguish bureaucratic entities by the foreign nation or groups of nations each department deals with.  Separate specialties but are often considered as a single industry.  What is it about USA's global trade industry that you find so different than many other industries?

It's a suggested consideration; no one's suggested that anyone MUST consider importing and exporting as a single industry.  You certainly write like a drama queen.  Did you originate that hyperbole phrase "pervert reality"?  I've never encountered it before.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 17, 2013, 11:59:40 AM
No logical reason not to have confidence in a transferable import certificate policy?

Is that right?

Well we know that such a policy will end up reducing imports, acting as a sort of economy wide tariff. This will raise the price people will have to pay in order to continue consuming at the level they are accustomed.

Not only that but other nations tend to retaliate when tariffs are erected. And we know what that does to trade and the economy.

Whether or not the protection will result in a net benefit for the common man will depend on the quality of jobs that this intervention induces, versus the quality of jobs that it diminishes.

How that nets out is anyone's guess.

What I do know is that political allocations are generally always in the interest of the few, where as market outcomes are dictated by the tyranny of the masses of consumers.

So I tend to side with the more inclusive institution, as it is based in peace rather than force and is disciplined by market forces (profit and loss) where as the state has no such discipline. There is nothing keeping the state from achieving inefficient but politically popular outcomes. 

Trade is a problem facing the global economy. There is way too much protection in this funny brand of "free trade." After all how much free trade can exist in a bill thousands of pages long?

Toward Liberty, opinions are not facts and when you "write we all know" you are claiming or inferring that your opinions are shared by all or at least the vast majority of persons considering the same subject.  "We all know" is a hyperbole that I believe almost all of us have encountered and it the case of your post #181 it's far from what is actual.  Everyone does not generally agree with your opinion in this matter and possibly in many other matters.

Throughout my posts I refute your post #181, but my post #182 specifically argues that this transferable Import Certificates proposal is based upon, is dependent upon and would succeed because it's based upon pure free enterprise concepts.

I a populists, suppose you and our fellow members of this group consider "liberal" as the least insulting label you all wish to hang around my neck.

So why is it that you all do not to the extent that I do have confidence in our domestic market places when they practice pure free enterprise methods?  The transferable IC proposal is not pure free trade but it's certainly pure free enterprise.

Why do you all who describe yourselves as conservatives argue that in this case of ICs, free enterprise will not succeed?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 04:12:31 AM
Toward Liberty, why would anyone believe it is a perversion of reality to consider USA's importing and exporting as a single global trade industry?

It is a perversion of reality because trade happens between firms in many different industries. Sure some firms export and import.

The big disagreement between us regards the coherence of viewing trade as something happening between counties, instead of between individual firms.

The implication being that when trade is viewed in a realistic fashion, trade balances become meaninglessly incoherent.

National trade balances only achieve coherence when trade is viewed as an industry inside a single firm.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 05:39:22 AM
Toward Liberty, opinions are not facts and when you "write we all know" you are claiming or inferring that your opinions are shared by all or at least the vast majority of persons considering the same subject.  "We all know" is a hyperbole that I believe almost all of us have encountered and it the case of your post #181 it's far from what is actual.  Everyone does not generally agree with your opinion in this matter and possibly in many other matters.

Throughout my posts I refute your post #181, but my post #182 specifically argues that this transferable Import Certificates proposal is based upon, is dependent upon and would succeed because it's based upon pure free enterprise concepts.

I a populists, suppose you and our fellow members of this group consider "liberal" as the least insulting label you all wish to hang around my neck.

So why is it that you all do not to the extent that I do have confidence in our domestic market places when they practice pure free enterprise methods?  The transferable IC proposal is not pure free trade but it's certainly pure free enterprise.

Why do you all who describe yourselves as conservatives argue that in this case of ICs, free enterprise will not succeed?

Respectfully, Supposn

Ah but we do "know" this to be true from our economic intuition.

When competition is reduced prices rise.

We have to remember that this is an economy wide tariff which will result in fewer imports. We also have to remember that firms import goods that are cheaper to produce else where.

Add that together and you get falling real incomes.

Now you suggest that this will lead to more growth in the domestic market, and that these new jobs will be more valuable and productive than the old ones they replace.

These new jobs are thought to be export jobs.

But if that were indeed true then this tariff would not be needed, for the market needs no impetus for discovering profitable investments.

And let us recall that tariffs typically incite retaliation and that leads to a shrinking ability to export.

You have to face the fact that the allocation of investment across the economies structure of production is something you wish to influence via policy, in typical central planning fashion.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 18, 2013, 06:38:09 AM
It is a perversion of reality because trade happens between firms in many different industries. Sure some firms export and import. ...

Toward Liberty, I've been told that some steel corporations make all types of steel and some only manufacture very specific specialized types of steel.  If that's the case, you'd contend that there is no steel industry?
 
I suppose that most importing or exporting enterprises transactions are concentrated upon relatively few types of products; (i.e. by choice or circumstances they have become specialists).  I would suppose that the majority of enterprises that serve as importers on behalf of their clients, (as opposed to importers of goods almost entirely devoted to supporting the production output of their own enterprises', (i.e. in house importing specialists) would also serve clients requiring they act as exporters on behalf of their clients.  Some clients may have need for both and others may need only one side of their expertise.  This would be a logical employment of those enterprises' expertise of global trade.

I'm of course speculating that these do not describe particularly rare or even unusual cases.  Perhaps you or one of the other CPF members have some actual experience and could correct what I admit is only my speculative concepts?

I perceive no logical reason why USA's importing and exporting cannot logically be perceived as a single industry engaged in USA's global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toward Liberty, regardless of the rejection or acceptance of a "global trade industry" concept, familiarity of other nations' commercial environments breeds perceptions of commercial opportunities within those nations that might have otherwise been unrecognized.

The increased types of USA exported products due to Import Certificates behaving as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods is not unlikely to induce some additional USA imports.

If USA adopted the transferable ICs policy it's logical to expect that it will soon increase USA's exports of goods more than otherwise.  (Otherwise being continuation of our current global trade policies).   Along with that we can expect that the sum of USA's aggregate imports plus exports will soon increase (more than otherwise).

I speculate that because of this familiarity I described, USA's imports will to some extent also in time increase (more than otherwise).

I'm using a Library computer and my time is up.  I can't finish this and spell check so this ends this post.

Respectfully, Supposn

Lets take a real world example, hypothetical of course, but this is how trade works.

China sells widgets at $5.0 a piece, suddenly we institute the IC program, so the person that's been buying widgets from China tells his supplier he can't absorb the added cost of the certificate, and his customers refuse to pay the added cost, so he tells his exporter friend in China he's folding his business.

Well that worked out great, didn't it? Put the guy out of business.

Now the other version, the exporter tells his friend he'll reduce the cost of the product a dollar per, which is an exact offset of the cost of the IC.

So what just happened here? That's right, absolutely nothing, except the Govt just found a new source of business tax.

Quote from: Solar on September 18, 2013, 06:58:36 PM
Lets take a real world example, hypothetical of course, but this is how trade works.

China sells widgets at $5.0 a piece, suddenly we institute the IC program, so the person that's been buying widgets from China tells his supplier he can't absorb the added cost of the certificate, and his customers refuse to pay the added cost, so he tells his exporter friend in China he's folding his business. ...

Solar, one step at a time let's walk your example through.
If you're applying this to reality, you need to be specific and explicit.

Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Solar, one step at a time let's walk your example through.
If you're applying this to reality, you need to be specific and explicit.

Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn

It's pretty self explanatory, point is, in the end, the manufacturer lowered his price in order to keep his buyer, buying from him.
So what was the end result? The Govt got a cut, the consumer still gets imported widgets at the same price and nothing changed.

Toward liberty, although you do not believe it. I am no less than you a proponent of free enterprise.  We share confidence in many of the same economic concepts.
People generally adapt to their environments and rationalize what's in their best interests are similarly to their nations' best interests.

Adoption of the transferable IC policy changes the environment of the nation's global trade and thus people's behavior. Due to the same free enterprise concepts that you and I agree upon, the adoption of the IC proposal would improve USA's economy more than other wise; (otherwise being the retention of our present global trade policies).

This is based upon the logic explained in the "Trade Balances' affects upon their nation's GDP" paragraphs within the Wikipedia article entitled "balance of trade", (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade)
and
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps .

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 18, 2013, 06:58:36 PM
Lets take a real world example, hypothetical of course, but this is how trade works.

China sells widgets at $5.0 a piece, suddenly we institute the IC program, so the person that's been buying widgets from China tells his supplier he can't absorb the added cost of the certificate, and his customers refuse to pay the added cost, so he tells his exporter friend in China he's folding his business. ...

Solar, ... Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////

Solar your answer is that "It's pretty self explanatory"?  If it were self explanatory, the answers to my questions would be found within your post.  I don't sign blank checks.
Dependent upon your answers, additional questions may arise.  Differing conditions have different consequences.  If you cannot provide answers to these minimal inquiries, you don't really have an example and you don't really care to receive an answer to one.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 11:24:22 PM
Solar, ... Prior to USA's adoption of the transferable IC policy:
Who were the final USA purchasers of the widgets; what were they then paying for widgets, who were the final users of the widgets, and what were they doing with the widgets, how much are the final purchasers of widgets now willing to pay for them, (i.e. what price increase would the market bear)?

Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////

Solar your answer is that "It's pretty self explanatory"?  If it were self explanatory, the answers to my questions would be found within your post.  I don't sign blank checks.
Dependent upon your answers, additional questions may arise.  Differing conditions have different consequences.  If you cannot provide answers to these minimal inquiries, you don't really have an example and you don't really care to receive an answer to one.

Respectfully, Supposn

Oh jeeeez, widgets are imaginary products that can have any value variable applied.
I used $5 because it's easy, the public quit using them because a one dollar increase was more than the Mkt was willing to bare.
Have you no imagination whatsoever? Your need to know every detail tells me your thinking is inline with leftists that believe they can control everything if they have all the numbers, not once considering human nature.
It's all about money and power.

Get it through your head, you cannot dictate Mkts and expect progress, what you will get is monopolies that can afford to play within the rules of your scheme of sucking the life force out of a system that runs on a shoddy set of rules as it is, but still works regardless.

What this comes down to is just another tax under the guise of leveling the playing field, based on the Carbon tax model/scheme.

"Carbon Trading" is exactly the same, which is where Buffet got his idea.

At least the Carbon tax is called a tax, but your IC works exactly the same way, "Pay to Play" tax!
Though Gore originally called it a Carbon Mkt of trading CC's, (Carbon Certificates) in the beginning, but once people figured out just how it worked, they quickly realized it was designed to benefit only a few, including Govt, and accomplish absolutely nothing, and that Sir is exactly what your plan does. Absolutely nothing but make a few richer and make certain monopolies larger.