• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

USA’s chronic trade deficits.

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
USA’s chronic trade deficits.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
There are only two presidential candidates that do not actually reject and/or effectively avoid giving any credence to the problem of USA’s chronic global annual trade deficits. Nether Mr. Donald Trump or Senator Bernard Sanders offer any explicit proposal to significantly reduce USA’s annual global trade deficits.

I’m a political orphan; there’s no candidate worthy of support.

I’m among the proponents of USA adopting a specific unilateral Import Certificate policy for conducting our global trade of goods. It is a primarily market rather than government driven policy that’s entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
And/or
The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
30,251
Reaction score
28,032
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.

This one line tells me you are not very clear on capital flows between various economic models. Trade deficits in the right condition can be a problem, but it is not wise to say trade deficits are always a problem or "immediately detrimental to their nation's economies."

As examples. For a trade deficit to be considered bad it would mean that capital flows ends up as a means of current consumption only instead of investment, which can be in itself inflationary when thinking about a probable underline employment fault. In other words, how demand is being handled and what is the impact on labor. Now, a trade deficit can be considered acceptable if the resulting capital flows heads right into investment. Which may be reflected by rising incomes, rising investment confidence in the general markets, and/or lack of goods and services inflationary pressures.

It all depends on where (and why) capital flows is occurring.

Consumer preference becomes less of an issue assuming trade deficits end up more financed by foreign investment *and* that the dollar value itself is not diminished by the trade direction. Assuming so then even a negative number in the GDP math is not terrible. Mainly because it never comes down to any one year's number, but rather the trend in GDP math. In this case the number on a trend line of (X-I), exports minus imports. Any wild swing in that number on a trend line could indicate a problem, but in itself a trade deficit is not always a bad thing. As long as foreign investment stays strong, as well as investment in the dollar stays strong (and they both are still,) then the negative number applied to GDP ends up less problematic.

Besides, in political terms the economics of capital flows is never mentioned. For Trump and Sanders both (even though it is for different political reasons) they suggest that our trade deficit is because of trade agreement fault. While they might be right, if they ignore capital flows then any drastic change via a re-negotiation or some high tax penalty on imports might have a terrible consequences to how and why capital is flowing.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,604
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Think about it like this.

I heard that Nestle was taking water out of the ground for bottled water that it is sending to India and China. It's been pulling so much water out of the ground that thousands of people and even whole towns are running out of water. I also heard they are sucking water straight from the Great lakes to send to China and India causing the level of the lake to drop.

Now honestly, I don't know if this is true, it's probably BS, but its really not important. The story is supposed it illustrate a point. How did it make you feel as you read that first sentence, when you realized that other countries we getting the benefits of our water and people here in the US suffer for it?

People claim they want to increase exports thereby decreasing the trade deficit......But remember that when we trade, we are sending things of real value, like water, trees, steel and lots of other things that we take from the land, our land. These are things of REAL value. Today, other countries are going into their environments in their countries and sending those resources to us. If you just stop and think about it, imports are the REAL wealth, and exports are real expenses.

Trade deficits measure deficits is dollars, but there are other costs that aren't valued in dollars, damage to the environment and human suffering, just to name two.

Now we could lower the trade deficit by decreasing imports and increasing sales to people here at home that would accomplish the goal, but we'd loose the benifit of less costly products from abroad. Now if the entire point of this exercise is to suggest that a lower trade deficit will lead to more jobs here at home, well then, you can have your cake and eat it to. Because there are ways to decrease unemployment AND continue to enjoy the benefits of other countries sending us their goods at low prices.
 
Last edited:

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This one line tells me you are not very clear on capital flows between various economic models. Trade deficits in the right condition can be a problem, but it is not wise to say trade deficits are always a problem or "immediately detrimental to their nation's economies." ...
...Besides, in political terms the economics of capital flows is never mentioned. For Trump and Sanders both (even though it is for different political reasons) they suggest that our trade deficit is because of trade agreement fault. While they might be right, if they ignore capital flows then any drastic change via a re-negotiation or some high tax penalty on imports might have a terrible consequences to how and why capital is flowing.

OrphanSlug, regardless of what you believe regarding “capital flows”, a nation’s annual trade deficit ALWAYS indicates the extent of the nation’s failure to produce; (i.e. the specified nation’s GDP within the specified year was less than otherwise, (otherwise being if the nation then had not suffered a trade deficit). It further indicates the nation’s numbers of jobs and median wage was also less than otherwise.
The economic consequences of a nation’s balances of trade are cumulative with the passage of time.

I'm among the proponents of an Import Certificate policy for a nation's global trade. It is a unilateral policy that would only be to advantage of adopting nations that otherwise would continue to suffer chronic trade deficits of globally traded goods.

If you disagree with any specific points as expressed within the Wikipedia article entitled "Import Certificates"
or the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade”, I’d be pleased to discuss it.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Think about it like this. ...
... People claim they want to increase exports thereby decreasing the trade deficit......But remember that when we trade, we are sending things of real value, like water, trees, steel and lots of other things that we take from the land, our land. These are things of REAL value. Today, other countries are going into their environments in their countries and sending those resources to us. ...

CSBrown28, the question that your 10:43 PM, 22Mar2016 post did not raise was how USA adopting the proposed Import Certificate policy would change our USA’s current practices with regard to depletion of resources and pollution of our environment?

Because both current and the proposed individual determinations of global market transactions substantially market rather than government driven, there would be no substantial changes of these resource depletions and pollutant factors you're considering.
But as you surmised, if USA’s production of goods significantly increased due to the expected increased total of domestic and export market demands for USA goods, USA’s depletion of resources and pollution would also increase.

Additionally we will have induced the creation of more jobs and increased purchasing power of our median wage. This would also be reflected by increased sales to employees and their dependents, and increased revenues for enterprises more dependent upon USA’s levels of wage’s purchasing powers.

If the expected increases of GDP due to Import Certificates would not materialize, these afore mentioned changes will not occur.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
USA’s chronic trade deficits.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
There are only two presidential candidates that do not actually reject and/or effectively avoid giving any credence to the problem of USA’s chronic global annual trade deficits. Nether Mr. Donald Trump or Senator Bernard Sanders offer any explicit proposal to significantly reduce USA’s annual global trade deficits.

I’m a political orphan; there’s no candidate worthy of support.

I’m among the proponents of USA adopting a specific unilateral Import Certificate policy for conducting our global trade of goods. It is a primarily market rather than government driven policy that’s entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
And/or
The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn

I wonder about our trade treaties. It is hard to believe that the WTO would accept such a system, if it were mandatory. Have you looked into that?
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Think about it like this. ...
...
People claim they want to increase exports thereby decreasing the trade deficit......But remember that when we trade, we are sending things of real value, like water, trees, steel and lots of other things that we take from the land, our land. These are things of REAL value. Today, other countries are going into their environments in their countries and sending those resources to us. If you just stop and think about it, imports are the REAL wealth, and exports are real expenses.

Trade deficits measure deficits is dollars, but there are other costs that aren't valued in dollars, damage to the environment and human suffering, just to name two. ...

CSBrown28, although environmental pollution is of economic costs to our nation, it doesn’t directly contribute to sellers’ costs of their products.

But increased costs of materials and expenditures due to producers’ compliances to addition environmental regulations do directly contribute to the per unit sellers products’ costs. Within both our current and the proposed Import Certificate policies for USA’s global trade, the sellers’ costs and their profit margins affect the negotiated prices, (i.e. the market prices) of all products.

Transferable Import Certificates would be a net addition to the prices of imported goods sold to USA purchasers and because it behaves as an additional revenue stream for exporters of USA goods, it effectively is a reduction of prices for USA exports sold to foreign purchasers.

The import Certificate proposal is substantially a market (rather than government) driven global trade policy.
The certificates are only issued to exporters of USA goods agreeing to have their goods assessed and pay the assessment fee that defray all federal expenditures due to the trade policy.
Importers of goods into the USA are required to surrender certificates that are then cancelled). The “face values of the surrendered certificates must cover the value of the shipment being brought into the USA.

The certificates behave as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports and as an effective increase of costs to USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Think about it like this. ...
...
Now we could lower the trade deficit by decreasing imports and increasing sales to people here at home that would accomplish the goal, but we'd loose the benifit of less costly products from abroad. Now if the entire point of this exercise is to suggest that a lower trade deficit will lead to more jobs here at home, well then, you can have your cake and eat it to. Because there are ways to decrease unemployment AND continue to enjoy the benefits of other countries sending us their goods at low prices.

CSBrown28, if you’re aware of a proposal superior to the concept of Import Certificates, please explain it to all of us.
Between our current and the proposed transferable Import Certificate policy, pure free trade is the inferior of the two concepts.

Transferable Import Certificate policy would do more than significantly reduce (if not entirely eliminate our annual trade deficits of global goods and increase our numbers of jobs; it also increases the purchasing powers of wages, (i.e. the median wage).
It is not a proposal to decrease USA’s participation in global trade but it will not gladly tolerate trade deficits of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wonder about our trade treaties. It is hard to believe that the WTO would accept such a system, if it were mandatory. Have you looked into that?

Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP and median wage - Page 3 - Defending The Truth Political Forum

USA’s trade agreements.

Guy39, It pleases me that no U.S. international trade agreement has the status of a treaty.
International treaties must be agreed to by the president and a 2/3 senate vote. Unlike a U.S. Executive Order or a U.S. Congressional and Executive agreement,

It is prohibited for any statute or treaty to be contrary to the then existing U.S. constitution. Treaties have legal status superior to federal statutes and equal to clauses in our constitution. I believe all U.S. trade agreements were signed, (subject to six months notice), of our right to terminate USA’s participation to the agreement.

The U.S. constitution gives the president extraordinary powers regarding the conduction of U.S. foreign affairs. President Carter terminated a commitment that was part of the Taiwan Relations Act. (That act’s a congressional-executive agreement (passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president and deals with foreign affairs). Then U.S. Senator from Arizona Goldwater appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for that termination to be reversed.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s policy, (with good reason) has always been to the extent feasible they try to keep political issues at arm’s length from the courts. The Supreme Court refused to hear Senator Goldwater’s case deeming that he did not have the necessary legal status to sue the administration’s determination in this case. (Neither the U.S. Senate or the House had joined Senator Goldwater’s suite).

I’m not a lawyer but this precedent, (which is not the only instance) of a president unilaterally terminating a foreign affairs agreement, seems to imply a great deal.
I believe the president has the unilateral power to terminate any international agreement that’s other than a treaty. It would require the same act or resolution to be passed by both houses for congress to attempt to have the president’s action overturned. If that doesn’t suffice, the congress could only then appeal to the federal courts for a remedy.

The U.S. Supreme Court may decide that that would be primarily a political matter or that due to the president’s extraordinary powers with regard to our foreign relations, they will not hear the case or they may decide the case for or against the president.

Refer to Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Respectfully, Supposn
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP and median wage - Page 3 - Defending The Truth Political Forum

USA’s trade agreements.

Guy39, It pleases me that no U.S. international trade agreement has the status of a treaty.
International treaties must be agreed to by the president and a 2/3 senate vote. Unlike a U.S. Executive Order or a U.S. Congressional and Executive agreement,

It is prohibited for any statute or treaty to be contrary to the then existing U.S. constitution. Treaties have legal status superior to federal statutes and equal to clauses in our constitution. I believe all U.S. trade agreements were signed, (subject to six months notice), of our right to terminate USA’s participation to the agreement.

The U.S. constitution gives the president extraordinary powers regarding the conduction of U.S. foreign affairs. President Carter terminated a commitment that was part of the Taiwan Relations Act. (That act’s a congressional-executive agreement (passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president and deals with foreign affairs). Then U.S. Senator from Arizona Goldwater appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for that termination to be reversed.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s policy, (with good reason) has always been to the extent feasible they try to keep political issues at arm’s length from the courts. The Supreme Court refused to hear Senator Goldwater’s case deeming that he did not have the necessary legal status to sue the administration’s determination in this case. (Neither the U.S. Senate or the House had joined Senator Goldwater’s suite).

I’m not a lawyer but this precedent, (which is not the only instance) of a president unilaterally terminating a foreign affairs agreement, seems to imply a great deal.
I believe the president has the unilateral power to terminate any international agreement that’s other than a treaty. It would require the same act or resolution to be passed by both houses for congress to attempt to have the president’s action overturned. If that doesn’t suffice, the congress could only then appeal to the federal courts for a remedy.

The U.S. Supreme Court may decide that that would be primarily a political matter or that due to the president’s extraordinary powers with regard to our foreign relations, they will not hear the case or they may decide the case for or against the president.

Refer to Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Respectfully, Supposn

There is not doubt that the US can legally cancel any treaty. Whether it is smart is quite another matter. People tend not to trust those that reneg on contracts or even on promises.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is not doubt that the US can legally cancel any treaty. Whether it is smart is quite another matter. People tend not to trust those that reneg on contracts or even on promises.

Jog, few (if any) agreements among individual persons or enterprises or nations should be expected to remain unchanged forever.
There is not a commercial contract or an international agreement that cannot be effectively terminated if one of the parties determines that the consequences of termination are less detrimental than continuing the then existing agreement.

Among the responsibilities of nations’ diplomatic missions and consulates is to advise their governments of the foreign nation's laws and practices and the interpretations of the drafted agreements their nation is entering into.

Jog, actually, I did not state certainty that "ALL" USA trade agreements are subject to "legal" termination.

What I in part wrote was: The U.S. Supreme Court may decide that [ a legal challenge to the termination of a particular trade agreement] would be primarily a political matter or that due to the president’s extraordinary powers with regard to our foreign relations, they will not hear the case or they may decide the case for or against the president.


Respectfully, Supposn
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This one line tells me you are not very clear on capital flows between various economic models. Trade deficits in the right condition can be a problem, but it is not wise to say trade deficits are always a problem or "immediately detrimental to their nation's economies."

As examples. For a trade deficit to be considered bad it would mean that capital flows ends up as a means of current consumption only instead of investment, which can be in itself inflationary when thinking about a probable underline employment fault. In other words, how demand is being handled and what is the impact on labor. Now, a trade deficit can be considered acceptable if the resulting capital flows heads right into investment. Which may be reflected by rising incomes, rising investment confidence in the general markets, and/or lack of goods and services inflationary pressures.

It all depends on where (and why) capital flows is occurring.

Consumer preference becomes less of an issue assuming trade deficits end up more financed by foreign investment *and* that the dollar value itself is not diminished by the trade direction. Assuming so then even a negative number in the GDP math is not terrible. Mainly because it never comes down to any one year's number, but rather the trend in GDP math. In this case the number on a trend line of (X-I), exports minus imports. Any wild swing in that number on a trend line could indicate a problem, but in itself a trade deficit is not always a bad thing. As long as foreign investment stays strong, as well as investment in the dollar stays strong (and they both are still,) then the negative number applied to GDP ends up less problematic.

Besides, in political terms the economics of capital flows is never mentioned. For Trump and Sanders both (even though it is for different political reasons) they suggest that our trade deficit is because of trade agreement fault. While they might be right, if they ignore capital flows then any drastic change via a re-negotiation or some high tax penalty on imports might have a terrible consequences to how and why capital is flowing.

Nevertheless over the last year our deficit has increased and our imports and exports have both decreased. So what we have is not working.
 

James972

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
USA’s chronic trade deficits.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.

This is wrong of course which explains why he did not say why deficits are detrimental. In fact deficits are self-correcting since for example the Chinese must spend every dollar they get from us, here. If not why would they bother to sell to us at all?
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Supposn wrote annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.

This is wrong of course which explains why he did not say why deficits are detrimental. In fact deficits are self-correcting since for example the Chinese must spend every dollar they get from us, here. If not why would they bother to sell to us at all?

James972, the Chinese government does not generally sell to us, but entrepreneurs and their enterprises do so.

I don’t doubt that there’s a fuzzy line between those with government and those with enterprises that have significant influence upon and within the government. This should be understandable to those with even slight familiarity with governments.

Individual trade transactions are agreements between individuals that expect to derive gain for themselves or for their enterprises. What’s to the advantage of individuals may and often do diverge from the consequences upon their societies.
[I.E. All USA purchasers of cheaper foreign goods gain financially but that doesn’t fully compensate for USA’s trade deficits’ effects upon our numbers of jobs and our wage levels.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nation’s economy. Regardless of the nation’s economic condition within the year, the nation’s production, (GDP) and numbers of jobs, was less than otherwise; (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced a trade deficit). Lesser GDP and jobs are also reflected by lesser median wage than otherwise.

The accrued detriments of trade deficits would to some extent be mitigated if the trade deficits were due to importing production supporting goods and services. In such cases we should expect lesser future deficits due to greater future production. This certainly is not the case with USA’s consistent annual trade deficits of goods that have exceeded half centurie's duration.

We know you disagree with all I’ve posted but you’re unable to specific what points you find faulty and explain what you believe to be their failings.
If you had even briefly scanned the referred to “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” paragraphs in Wikipedia’s “Balance of trade” article, you would have been able to post more than your vague inexplicable criticism.

Supposn
 
Last edited:

James972

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Supposn wrote annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.



James972, the Chinese government does not generally sell to us, but entrepreneurs and their enterprises do so.

I don’t doubt that there’s a fuzzy line between those with government and those with enterprises that have significant influence upon and within the government. This should be understandable to those with even slight familiarity with governments.

Individual trade transactions are agreements between individuals that expect to derive gain for themselves or for their enterprises. What’s to the advantage of individuals may and often do diverge from the consequences upon their societies.
[I.E. All USA purchasers of cheaper foreign goods gain financially but that doesn’t fully compensate for USA’s trade deficits’ effects upon our numbers of jobs and our wage levels.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nation’s economy. Regardless of the nation’s economic condition within the year, the nation’s production, (GDP) and numbers of jobs, was less than otherwise; (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced a trade deficit). Lesser GDP and jobs are also reflected by lesser median wage than otherwise.

The accrued detriments of trade deficits would to some extent be mitigated if the trade deficits were due to importing production supporting goods and services. In such cases we should expect lesser future deficits due to greater future production. This certainly is not the case with USA’s consistent annual trade deficits of goods that have exceeded half centurie's duration.

We know you disagree with all I’ve posted but you’re unable to specific what points you find faulty and explain what you believe to be their failings.
If you had even briefly scanned the referred to “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” paragraphs in Wikipedia’s “Balance of trade” article, you would have been able to post more than your vague inexplicable criticism.

Supposn

actually you said deficits are bad but clean forgot to explain why. Why not try??
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
actually you said deficits are bad but clean forgot to explain why. Why not try??

James972, the referenced paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade” contain a total of 347 words.
You have thus far been unable to specify any single point within the paragraphs and explain what fault you perceive within that point.

You know that you disagree with the concepts but you do not know precisely what you specifically object to or you are unable to explain the logical basis of your objection?

Respectfully, Supposn
 

James972

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know that you disagree with the concepts but you do not know precisely what you specifically object to
I object to protecting and thus crippling our industries
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I object to protecting and thus crippling our industries
… and (you contend) USA’s consistent trade deficits of global goods every year in excess of a half century has been net beneficial to USA's economy because …..?

James972, apparently you're unable to finish that specific sentence in an explicit manner.

You’ve been provided with a 347 word explanation of how and why due to USA’s annual trade deficits our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage are less than otherwise.
You believe otherwise but you’re unable to explain how and why any single point within those 347 words is incorrect? Your DNA prevents you from being specific and explicit?

Supposn
 

James972

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
… and (you contend) USA’s consistent trade deficits of global goods every year in excess of a half century has been net beneficial to USA's economy because …..?

because they have enabled American's to buy the best, cheapest products in the world and thus increase their standard of living, plus they have highlighted how uncompetitive America is becoming due to the liberal influence.
 

James972

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You believe otherwise but you’re unable to explain how and why
You want to know why protecting and crippling our industries is bad??? Because then they are not world class and then our country is not either and then we will be defeated economically and then militarily
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You want to know why protecting and crippling our industries is bad??? Because then they are not world class and then our country is not either and then we will be defeated economically and then militarily

James972, you describe “capping” the extent of low-wage nation’s goods’ advantages over USA products as protecting USA’s industries.
I will not deny that the Import certificate policy would be of some advantage to any enterprise within the USA that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods anywhere in the world.
You’ve been unwilling or unable to explain why you believe that to be undesirable.

Why do you believe that our chronic annual trade deficits have not been dragging upon our GDP and consequentially upon our numbers of jobs, and their job rates?

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,117
Reaction score
1,960
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The use of Import Certificates are intended for a particular and not a general use, as indicated in Article 12 of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs ans Trade) supervised by the WTO.

XIV. Article XII

A. Text of Article XII

Article XII*: Restrictions to Safeguard the Balance of Payments

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article XI, any contracting party, in order to safeguard its external financial position and its balance of payments, may restrict the quantity or value of merchandise permitted to be imported, subject to the provisions of the following paragraphs of this Article.

2. (a) Import restrictions instituted, maintained or intensified by a contracting party under this Article shall not exceed those necessary:

(i) to forestall the imminent threat of, or to stop, a serious decline in its monetary reserves, or

(ii) in the case of a contracting party with very low monetary reserves, to achieve a reasonable rate of increase in its reserves.


Due regard shall be paid in either case to any special factors which may be affecting the reserves of such contracting party or its need for reserves, including, where special external credits or other resources are available to it, the need to provide for the appropriate use of such credits or resources


(b) Contracting parties applying restrictions under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph shall progressively relax them as such conditions improve, maintaining them only to the extent that the conditions specified in that sub-paragraph still justify their application. They shall eliminate the restrictions when conditions would no longer justify their institution or maintenance under that sub-paragraph.

3. (a) Contracting parties undertake, in carrying out their domestic policies, to pay due regard to the need for maintaining or restoring equilibrium in their balance of payments on a sound and lasting basis and to the desirability of avoiding an uneconomic employment of productive resources. They recognize that, in order to achieve these ends, it is desirable so far as possible to adopt measures which expand rather than contract international trade.

Do you really think that Import Certificates were intended for a long-term cure to America's negative Balance of Payments? Or that they would somehow prevent further unemployment in certain industries.

My reading of the text does not indicate that at all ....
____________________________________
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The use of Import Certificates are intended for a particular and not a general use, as indicated in Article 12 of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs ans Trade) supervised by the WTO.

Do you really think that Import Certificates were intended for a long-term cure to America's negative Balance of Payments? Or that they would somehow prevent further unemployment in certain industries.

My reading of the text does not indicate that at all ....
____________________________________

Lafayette, if the president issued an executive order requiring that those exporting from foreign nations destined for the USA, and/or those importing into the USA will be required to surrender Import Certificates to our government and/or our agents that cover the assessed value of their shipments, I suppose the federal courts should and would deem that order to be unconstitutional.

If a federal act should be enacted that required importers of goods into the USA similarly surrender Import Certificates I doubt if the federal courts would find that to be unconstitutional if the drafting of the act specified that it supercedes any existing federal laws, regulations or international agreements; (USA has no trade treaties).

With regard to your comments concerning GATT:
Yes I certainly do consider an Import Certificate policy as an all terms, (i.e. immediate through extremely long terms) remedy for a nation’s chronic trade deficits. Wikipedia’s description of the proposal specifically mentions possible interruptions of the policy if and when the nation’s global trade circumstances are favorable. The application of the Import Certificate act can be interrupted without removing the laws and regulations from the books.

The proposed act certainly would be (more than otherwise) of net benefit to USA’s GDP and thus also to our numbers of jobs and the purchasing powers of those jobs wages. The act does not pretend to eliminate or reduce unemployment from any particular industry. The concept‘s much more market rather than government driven.

My reading finds no serious incompatibility between an Import Certificate act and the GATT agreement’s text you provided IF we wish it to be satisfactorily resolved. As the Democratic and Republican parties now demonstrate, the simplest and least consequential differences are irresolvable among people of bad will.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
32,259
Reaction score
17,448
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
USA’s chronic trade deficits.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
There are only two presidential candidates that do not actually reject and/or effectively avoid giving any credence to the problem of USA’s chronic global annual trade deficits. Nether Mr. Donald Trump or Senator Bernard Sanders offer any explicit proposal to significantly reduce USA’s annual global trade deficits.

I’m a political orphan; there’s no candidate worthy of support.

I’m among the proponents of USA adopting a specific unilateral Import Certificate policy for conducting our global trade of goods. It is a primarily market rather than government driven policy that’s entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
And/or
The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn

Nobody is a political orphan. As much as our own opinions vary from others, there are many more like minded people out there that you can associate with without even knowing it .
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
266
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nobody is a political orphan. As much as our own opinions vary from others, there are many more like minded people out there that you can associate with without even knowing it .

RetiredUSN, I’m unaware of any like-minded people that are currently members or viable candidates for seats within the United States Congress.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Top Bottom