Replacing our lopsided (and not so) "Free Trade" with "Fair Trade" agreements would help solve a lot of our trade deficit problems (particularly with China).

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with foreign trade as long as it's fair and balanced between countries.

But then again, the real problem we face is that the United States borrows much of its money from the Chinese who, in turn, export a large percentage of the products found on our store shelves. China, in this respect, has the U.S. "over a barrel" so to speak (i.e. attempts to enact fair and balanced trade agreements with the Chinese could, or would, result in decreased lending to the U.S. on their part.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 04:12:55 PM
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

To your question above- of course there is a steel industry.

There are many industries.

The problem is in viewing trade as a single industry, or as trade between two national units.

In reality, trade occurs between distinct firms and involves an exchange of money for goods. There is no deficit to speak of.

And that is why trade balances are nonsensical.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 04:21:14 PM
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

Exports are going to decrease, not increase, when US firms decrease demand for imports from other nations. Nations retaliate. We know this from history.

The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports.

And I would be careful of thinking in terms of aggregates. It is not quantities of goods in and out that matters, rather it is their quality.

And further it seems to me that this entire concept is related to a misunderstanding of the economic problem. The IC policy does nothing to alleviate the real underlying causes of the unemployment, meager economic growth, stagnant real wages, etc with are rooted in our monetary system.

Quote from: Supposn on September 18, 2013, 10:50:31 PM
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

I dont believe we propose the same system, not at all. Nor do we understand it in a similar way.

I don't even recognize national interest as a coherent concept, nor do I agree with the relationship between trade balances and GDP. Indeed I don't even think GDP is a coherent metric.

I would place the IC certificate plan under the heading of mercantilism or protectionism and characterize it as a form of central planning.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 18, 2013, 06:38:09 AM... 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.

Toward Liberty & cc Solar, you (Toward Liberty), and I ALMOST agree upon one of the contentions between us.

I do consider aggregate transactions between the USA and the remainder of the world with little or no concern for individual transactions.
But even when considering national trade deficits' in general, I do consider some differences between the attributes of individual nations' trade deficits.

Thus within a thread I entitled "Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs", my first post is entitled "Annual trade deficits are always an immediate detrimental to their nations' GDPs" and my second post is entitled "Mitigating trade deficit's national detriments".
( http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/trade-deficits-are-always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps/msg144676/#msg144676 ).

I wrote that to an extent nations' lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products.  It is also conceivable for a nation's laborers' aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit's detriment to their GDP.  Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits (and I then pointed out that these exceptions were not sufficiently significant within USA's cases to significantly alter our annual trade deficits' detriments to our GDPs).

The point is that even when discussing aggregate rather than individual national circumstances, there can be differences between nations' aggregate circumstances that significantly alter those individual nations' economies.

[Solar, I'm not attempting to evade what you consider as an example to be considered and discussed but unless you can provide what I consider to be germane details of your "example", I cannot reasonably consider it as an "example" to be discussed].

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:21:02 AM...The problem is in viewing trade as a single industry, or as trade between two national units.
In reality, trade occurs between distinct firms and involves an exchange of money for goods. There is no deficit to speak of.
And that is why trade balances are nonsensical.

Toward Liberty, you take the libertarian approach and I'm a populist.  I prefer that the wealthy be wealthier by sharing a smaller portion of a larger pie, you prefer that they enjoy superior privileges by obtain a much larger than the 95% population segment of a smaller pie.

Libertarians are upset because a much larger segment of our population will have some more adequate healthcare insurance.  Libertarians prefer higher aggregate national taxes and/or lesser national care by limiting healthcare only to those who can afford outrageous prices or those who are able to obtain the benefits from private charities.

It's my perception, and I suppose you have reached a similar conclusion from our dialogues, if the basis of our differing economic philosophies.  You do not accept the concept of a national economy and I contend that national economies and economic policies should exist for the net benefit of the entire nation.

We both to a great extent agree upon the benefits of free enterprise but our goals for the consequences of those policies apparently differ to a great extent.

I am not theoretically or morally opposed to progressive tax rates but I prefer those differences be reduced if they cannot be entirely eliminated because due to their political consequences they induce poorer economic  consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Telmark on September 19, 2013, 06:52:36 AM... But then again, the real problem we face is that the United States borrows much of its money from the Chinese who, in turn, export a large percentage of the products found on our store shelves. China, in this respect, has the U.S. "over a barrel" so to speak (i.e. attempts to enact fair and balanced trade agreements with the Chinese could, or would, result in decreased lending to the U.S. on their part.

Telmark, we should not refrain from enacting what we consider should be done to improve our economy because we fear China will cease purchasing U.S. federal debts.  Similar to those experiencing drug rehabilitation treatments, we have to endure the remedy if we are to have a decent future.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM
Exports are going to decrease, not increase, when US firms decrease demand for imports from other nations. Nations retaliate. We know this from history.

The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports.

And I would be careful of thinking in terms of aggregates. It is not quantities of goods in and out that matters, rather it is their quality.

And further it seems to me that this entire concept is related to a misunderstanding of the economic problem. The IC policy does nothing to alleviate the real underlying causes of the unemployment, meager economic growth, stagnant real wages, etc with are rooted in our monetary system.

Bingo! Inflation will kill us long before any trade imbalance will effect our economy.

Quote from: Supposn on September 19, 2013, 10:10:57 AM
Telmark, we should not refrain from enacting what we consider should be done to improve our economy because we fear China will cease purchasing U.S. federal debts.  Similar to those experiencing drug rehabilitation treatments, we have to endure the remedy if we are to have a decent future.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree 100%. Now if we could only get our "leaders" to think the same...

Quote from: Supposn on September 19, 2013, 10:10:57 AM
Telmark, we should not refrain from enacting what we consider should be done to improve our economy because we fear China will cease purchasing U.S. federal debts.  Similar to those experiencing drug rehabilitation treatments, we have to endure the remedy if we are to have a decent future.

Respectfully, Supposn

China is not to blame, we, the people of the US are to blame for buying cheap crap, wanting Govt to do what we as individuals should do, is a cowards way out.

Look around your house and tell me half the stuff in your home isn't from China.
And if you think buying from Ikea, or Japanese products, Korean, India etc, think again, they too use cheap Chinese labor for their products as well.

Trying to curb buying habits through taxation is punitive, just like the tobacco tax or snack tax.
In truth, you are an enabler of big Govt.
Think about that.

Quote from: Supposn on September 19, 2013, 09:47:24 AM
Toward Liberty, you take the libertarian approach and I'm a populist.  I prefer that the wealthy be wealthier by sharing a smaller portion of a larger pie, you prefer that they enjoy superior privileges by obtain a much larger than the 95% population segment of a smaller pie.

That is a strawman. Libertarians support equality before the law and free markets. That puts everyone on the same playing field, ie no privileges. It is the policy of interventionism that creates the very privileges we are speaking of.

The economic logic I work from involves a recognition of an opportunity cost, in terms of economic growth, inherent in every intervention and it is from the desire to see a more fairer distribution of wealth that I advocate for the changes I do. Indeed without understanding the role of the state and the perversion it has on the economy, we cannot make sense of the attack on the middle class, nor the stagnation of real wages, that has characterized the economy since the late 70s.

Quote


Libertarians are upset because a much larger segment of our population will have some more adequate healthcare insurance.  Libertarians prefer higher aggregate national taxes and/or lesser national care by limiting healthcare only to those who can afford outrageous prices or those who are able to obtain the benefits from private charities.

It sounds like we must be working from a different idea of the meaning of the word libertarian.

As a libertarian I oppose taxation and generally all acts involving coercion.

Quote

It's my perception, and I suppose you have reached a similar conclusion from our dialogues, if the basis of our differing economic philosophies.  You do not accept the concept of a national economy and I contend that national economies and economic policies should exist for the net benefit of the entire nation.

Well that is indeed the truth. I believe the concept of a national economy to be a gross fiction. It is not a coherent concept given the nature of exchange.

Quote

We both to a great extent agree upon the benefits of free enterprise but our goals for the consequences of those policies apparently differ to a great extent.

I am not theoretically or morally opposed to progressive tax rates but I prefer those differences be reduced if they cannot be entirely eliminated because due to their political consequences they induce poorer economic  consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn

It is fair to say we are in completely different worlds when it comes to how we view the economy.

With that said you are a respectful and competent debate opponent and I appreciate that.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM
Exports are going to decrease, not increase, when US firms decrease demand for imports from other nations. ...

Toward Liberty, "Exports are going to decrease ... US firms (will) decrease demand for imports from other nations"; because you KNOW this from history?

Precisely how many nations do you KNOW of that have enacted a transferable IC policy in the described manner of this IC proposal?

When USA adopts a transferable IC policy, nation's wishing to continue importing their goods into the USA will require ICs which are only issued to exporters of USA goods.
Importers of goods into the USA or their agents can acquire ICs directly from the federal government if they also act as exporters of USA goods.

There are many indirect methods for importers of goods into the USA to acquire ICs:
They can purchase ICs on the open global market, (i.e. the internet).

If they are also foreign purchasers of USA export, rather than negotiating for lesser prices (due to exporters of USA goods acquiring valuable ICs at rock-bottom prices) t5hey could negotiate and purchase both the USA exported goods plus the IC's at a bundled price deal.

The critical point is that goods of any assessed value cannot be imported into the USA unless some goods of equal value were first exported from the USA.  Any enterprise that is presently exporting foreign goods into the USA will have to consider their costs of ICs which are determined by the open global market and then decide if it's profitable to continue exporting their goods into the USA or do they wish to relinquish their current share of USA's domestic markets to their competitors.

Isn't that the concept of free enterprise and individuals determining their own course to follow?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM... Nations retaliate. We know this from history.

The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports. ...

Toward Liberty, "Nations retaliate. We know this from history"?  Again I ask how many nations do you KNOW of that have enacted a transferable IC policy in the described manner of this IC proposal?
Regarding foreign nations' mischievous trade retaliation; excerpted from post #176:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If the USA adopted this Import Certificates and the federal government were to continue being unable or unwilling to induce other nations to treat our exports or attempts to export products in a manner equitable to their treatment of other nations, the consequences due to our IC policy would better defend our enterprises.

A USA transferable IC policy would limit the extent of any entities ability to undermine USA's global trade without doing greater harm to themselves; it even defends our exporting entrepreneurs from USA entities such as bureaus and departments within our federal government itself that too often undermine our own export trade because they seek to advance their own agendas.    Within an IC policy this all occurs due to market forces rather than U.S. federal actions.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You wrote "The dollars that are used to buy US exports are the dollars that were previously used to buy foreign imports".
It's an English sentence but it doesn't make sense.  Typographical error or you lost your train of thought?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 19, 2013, 07:26:48 AM... And I would be careful of thinking in terms of aggregates. It is not quantities of goods in and out that matters, rather it is their quality.

And further it seems to me that this entire concept is related to a misunderstanding of the economic problem. The IC policy does nothing to alleviate the real underlying causes of the unemployment, meager economic growth, stagnant real wages, etc with are rooted in our monetary system.

Toward Liberty, No, it is quantities of dollars that we're counting because that's how we keep score.  On the score board there's no difference between an in the fields home run and another run that was achieved by knocking the ball out of the entire stadium.

This IC concept excludes scarce or precious minerals from goods' assessed values but otherwise it does not determine dollar per dollar that the value of a rancher's beef is less economically beneficial than a boing aircraft.  It just issues ICs to exporters and collects ICs from importers according to their good's adjusted assessed values.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I will not argue as to the amount of net benefit this trade proposal would be to our economy as opposed to some other economic measures we can take.  It's justified because it would be a net benefit to our nation, is of no government net expense and does not consume any resources or hinder the enactment of any other serious proposal that would benefit our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on September 19, 2013, 05:58:48 PM
China is not to blame, we, the people of the US are to blame for buying cheap crap, wanting Govt to do what we as individuals should do, is a cowards way out.

Look around your house and tell me half the stuff in your home isn't from China.
And if you think buying from Ikea, or Japanese products, Korean, India etc, think again, they too use cheap Chinese labor for their products as well.

Trying to curb buying habits through taxation is punitive, just like the tobacco tax or snack tax.
In truth, you are an enabler of big Govt.
Think about that.

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