• 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 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.

The nation's trade deficits are primarily due to two factors:
*The China Price (for which the US can do absolutely nothing if the American consumer wants to buy their products of often questionable quality but always lower price than the American equivalent), and
*The fact that internal pricing structures do not allow the US to compete in global-markets where other low-cost countries have entered.

The phenomenon is perfectly natural, and Import Certificates where never intended to correct for global market imbalance in general by all and sundry, but only specifically as regards one nation in a particular difficulty in one particular sector of goods production).

It was certainly never intended for universal usage by the US to correct its problems of Trade Deficits, which occur naturally due to the comparatively higher wage-structure of American industry vis-a-vis the World.

And the reason Import Certificates have been not used massively as a Corrective Tool by the US is that, to do so, Uncle Sam would be facing a challenge according to GATT-rules by the WTO. Of course, the US could always leave the WTO, which would then become one helluva serious problem for Global Trade, which certainly does not need any such contention at the moment ...

In fact, this bee in your bonnet derives from a article by Buffet that appeared in 2003 in Fortune Magazine (see here). It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

The US must simply play by the rules, now as back in 2003 ...
 
The concept‘s much more market rather than government driven.

GATT's Article 12 relates to a specific good or set of goods the import of which are massively disturbing the importing country's balance of payments, for which the country seeks redressing by instituting internal measures to enhance competitiveness whilst restricting imports.

It is not intended as long-term protection against fair-competition deriving from world-trade.

(And so, what is "fair trade"? Good question! But, alas, but not relevant to this discussion of Import Certificates.)

As a portion of Article 12 (above) states clearly (and I repeat):
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.

Thus, its usage is clearly specific to certain goods* and is not generalized in nature ...

*And perhaps "services", but has never been employed (to my knowledge) in such a context.
_____________________________
 
Last edited:
The nation's trade deficits are primarily due to two factors:
*The China Price (for which the US can do absolutely nothing if the American consumer wants to buy their products of often questionable quality but always lower price than the American equivalent), and
*The fact that internal pricing structures do not allow the US to compete in global-markets where other low-cost countries have entered.

The phenomenon is perfectly natural, and Import Certificates where never intended to correct for global market imbalance in general by all and sundry, but only specifically as regards one nation in a particular difficulty in one particular sector of goods production).

It was certainly never intended for universal usage by the US to correct its problems of Trade Deficits, which occur naturally due to the comparatively higher wage-structure of American industry vis-a-vis the World.

And the reason Import Certificates have been not used massively as a Corrective Tool by the US is that, to do so, Uncle Sam would be facing a challenge according to GATT-rules by the WTO. Of course, the US could always leave the WTO, which would then become one helluva serious problem for Global Trade, which certainly does not need any such contention at the moment ...

In fact, this bee in your bonnet derives from a article by Buffet that appeared in 2003 in Fortune Magazine (see here). It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

The US must simply play by the rules, now as back in 2003 ...

Lafayette, how did you arrive at the conclusions expressed within your post? They are illogical.

An import Certificate proposal similar to what’s described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article has never existed. It’s a proposed solution to a chronic detrimental economic condition.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Lafayette, how did you arrive at the conclusions expressed within your post? They are illogical.

An import Certificate proposal similar to what’s described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article has never existed. It’s a proposed solution to a chronic detrimental economic condition.

You're the one who started to use the words "Import Certificates", not me.

I just looked into the GATT-treaty that specifies their usage (Article 12) and posted it here. It was Buffet's article in Fortune Mag (linked above) that first proposed employing them as a national panacea for protecting America from lower-cost imported products*.

And his article in 2003 was simply a "wake-up call" resulting from the fact that China came out of its concrete-shell and onto the Global Market with dirt-cheap products as from 1990/1991, about 8 years earlier than Buffet's Fortune Mag article ...

*Didn't work then, wont work now. We do not need to produce cheaper, but smarter.
 
AND YET ANOTHER BEE IN MY BONNET

We have a nation or people, internal to the boundaries of the USA, that could be employed to manufacture cheaper.

I will never understand why we do not use Indian Reservations to institute the same Chinese production-techniques as do the Chinese; then resell the products internal to the US by means of special-treaty with the Indian Nation. I suspect the lower-than-US cost of production combined with much lower product-transport costs would capture a considerable market-share. The Indian tribes located in these "independent and internal nations" are no less incompetent than whites in America elsewhere, but they are likely to have cheaper-costs.

The Indian Nation, that (from the Bureau of Indian Affairs) looks like this:
The main findings of the report are:
• The sum of population indicators associated with all federally recognized tribes in the year 2010 is 1,969,167.
• The state with the highest population indicator was Oklahoma with 471,738 Native Americans living in or near the areas of federally recognized tribes. This is followed by California with 281,374, and then by Arizona with 234,891.
• The BIA region with the highest population indicator is Eastern Oklahoma, with 335,529, followed by the Pacific Region with 281,112, and then by the Northwest Region with 266,028.
• Approximately 28.1 percent of the service population is below 16 years of age, and there are slightly more boys than girls. Approximately 64.8 percent are between the ages of 16 and 64, with slightly more females. Those ages 65 and older represent only 7.1 percent of the population, and again there are more women than men (4.0 percent versus 3.1 percent).
• On average about 49-50 percent of all Native Americans in or near the tribal areas of federally recognized tribes, who are 16 years or older, are employed either full or part time in civilian jobs.
• According to estimated ranges based on a 90 percent confidence interval, in several states less than 50 percent of Natives Americans are working, among those who are 16 years or older and who are living in or near the tribal areas of federally recognized tribes. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.
• Approximately 21 percent of all Native American employees work for a government (federal, state, local, or tribal), though this too varies by tribe, state, and region. For example, it ranges between 8 and 12 percent in Iowa, and between 40 and 45 percent in South Dakota, and Utah.
• An estimated 23 percent of all Native American families in the United States in 2010 earned incomes that are below the poverty line.
• The highest estimated rate of poverty is in South Dakota, with 43-47 percent of Native American families in 2010 earning incomes below the poverty line. The next highest rates of poverty are estimated to be in Arizona (31-33 percent), Minnesota (30-33 percent), Montana (32-36 percent), and Nebraska (30-37 percent).

That seems like a lot of wasted talent, that can be further trained to run manufacturing businesses with a great potential for jobs producing products that have long-since been lost to China ...
 
You're the one who started to use the words "Import Certificates", not me.

I just looked into the GATT-treaty that specifies their usage (Article 12) and posted it here. It was Buffet's article in Fortune Mag (linked above) that first proposed employing them as a national panacea for protecting America from lower-cost imported products*.

And his article in 2003 was simply a "wake-up call" resulting from the fact that China came out of its concrete-shell and onto the Global Market with dirt-cheap products as from 1990/1991, about 8 years earlier than Buffet's Fortune Mag article ...

*Didn't work then, wont work now. We do not need to produce cheaper, but smarter.

Lafayette, you haven’t provided your link to the GATT text from which your 3:05 PM, May 18, 20126 post quotes from but I’ll assume you transcripts are correct.

The text from article 12 of GATT you provided is applicable to balance of payments. It makes no mention of tariffs. I suspect there’s no mention of tariffs within GATT’s article 12 or within the referred to article 11.
I do not expect but it’s conceivable there’s some mention of import certificates within any portion GATT’s text but I’[d be extremely surprised if such mention were related to the transferable certificates as described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

I have no idea If your quoting and from where you are quoting within your later posts.

Without links, you’re posting out of context and I suspect that much if not all that you posted, (which may or may not all be from GATT text), may not in part or in its entirety be germane to the “Import Certificate” policy we are discussing.

Unless you can provide links and points to the paragraphs you’re quoting from, there’s no reason to reconsider my stated positions.

I specified the Wikipedia “Import Certificate” certificate proposal to differentiate from the proposal that was described in the Warren Buffet and Carol Loomis 2003 Fortune magazine article, (Carol Loomis was a Fortune magazine editor), or the Balanced Trade Restoration Act as introduced in the 2006 U.S. Senate or any other use of the term “Import Certificate”.
The differences of the Wikipedia version are noted within the article itself.

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.

GATT is an international agreement covering international trade. It works because countries adhere to it.

From the WTO:
The 128 countries that had signed GATT by 1994
On 1 January 1995, the WTO replaced GATT, which had been in existence since 1947, as the organization overseeing the multilateral trading system. The governments that had signed GATT were officially known as “GATT contracting parties”. Upon signing the new WTO agreements (which include the updated GATT, known as GATT 1994), they officially became known as “WTO members”.

See more on its history, here.

It's worked since 1948 regulating by common agreement a great deal of International Trade in goods/services. Those who become members of the WTO now sign on to the GATT articles of agreement. Which means they observe them, and participate in the good that such trade brings to their nation.

Now if you want to throw the WTO out the window because it no longer suits you, be my guest.

It's in Geneva, right on the lake - want the address ... ?
 
GATT is an international agreement covering international trade. It works because countries adhere to it.

From the WTO:

See more on its history, here.

It's worked since 1948 regulating by common agreement a great deal of International Trade in goods/services. Those who become members of the WTO now sign on to the GATT articles of agreement. Which means they observe them, and participate in the good that such trade brings to their nation.

Now if you want to throw the WTO out the window because it no longer suits you, be my guest.

It's in Geneva, right on the lake - want the address ... ?

I know all of that. A friend of my parents ran the agricultural negotiations for GATT for a while in Geneva. We discussed that type of thing, when I was a kid and I worked on it at university for a while. So, what do you want to tell me? That the fountain in in the lake is pretty?
 
Lafayette, refer to the 5:41 PM, May 18, 2016 post within this thread.

Lafayette, … 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).

A federal transferable Import Certificate act can be drafted as predicated upon its constitutionality.
An Import Certificate act would logically have some duration between commencing to issue the first transferable certificates and commencing to enforce the requirement that importers of goods into the USA must surrender certificates of sufficient “face values” to cover the assed values of their shipments prior to it being permitted to exit its USA entry dock.

That duration between commencement dates should be sufficient for interested parties to challenge the act’s constitutionality within our federal courts.

An Import Certificate act is a unilateral law, which would not be subject to further international negotiation. Foreign nations can accommodate our Import Certificate act; their only other alternative would be to squander their portion of USA’s domestic markets.
I doubt if all nations are willing to lose and able to enforce their effective relinquishing their share of USA's domestic market places; particularly because all direct costs due to the transferable Import Certificates are passed onto USA purchasers of Imported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Lafayette, I question but do not know if your contention that Import Certificates are explicitly contrary to the GATT agreement is correct. I’ve asked for your links and your citing of the specific points within the GATT text that you consider to be contrary to IC’s.
I’ll have to read in context the points you may provide using a public library’s computer. My computer crashes when I try to go to goggled "GATT text" sites.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
So, what do you want to tell me?

That Import Certificates will NEVER get beyond the GATT without justification; and for the US, there is NO justification of merit.
___________________
 
That Import Certificates will NEVER get beyond the GATT without justification; and for the US, there is NO justification of merit.
___________________

I don't see they improve things much either.
 
OJT TRAINING

Export certificates.

Let's face it, there are some industries from which we can no longer export due to inherent cost disadvantages. Why fight that fact?

For the US, I maintain that we will be creating more and better jobs that require a postsecondary degree (particularly vocational), so we should push the kids out-of-high-school into such a degree-program.

And like the EU, any postsecondary degree should be free-of-charge or as nearly "free" as possible. Otherwise many (who cannot afford it) simply will not attend postsecondary schooling if faced with a too high-cost of a vocational degree. Thus they are more prone to become unemployed. Meaning that we, the taxpayers, support them anyway.

So why not use our tax-dollars to help them avoid unemployment?

I suggest such Apprenticeship Programs as elaborated in Germany, which have proven remarkably efficient at both schooling and finding companies that accept apprentices thus interspersing "education of skills" and "application of skills" on a real-time basis. The "success rate" (meaning this: once finished schooling the apprentice is hired at the company where they apprentice) is around 95%.

The other 5% find jobs elsewhere at other companies, likely because the pay is better. Because of this program, I suggest, Germany has an unemployment rate of 4.7% whilst the US is at 5.5%.

The German postsecondary degrees are free and the apprentices earn a small OJT-income as well ...

PS: Why Germany Is So Much Better at Training Its Workers

Excerpt:
Both employers and employees want more from an apprenticeship than short-term training. Our group heard the same thing in plant after plant: We’re teaching more than skills. “In the future, there will be robots to turn the screws,” one educator told us. “We don’t need workers for that. What we need are people who can solve problems”—skilled, thoughtful, self-reliant employees who understand the company’s goals and methods and can improvise when things go wrong or when they see an opportunity to make something work better.
________________________
 
Last edited:
An Import Certificate act is a unilateral law, which would not be subject to further international negotiation. Foreign nations can accommodate our Import Certificate act; their only other alternative would be to squander their portion of USA’s domestic markets.

The reason the US has not used Import Certificates is because it knows that their usage cannot be justified according to Article 12. They cannot be legitimized in other than "highly specific industrial/commercial circumstances".

They are not a broad-band panacea for a country whose salary-scales are way beyond that of China or Africa.

The WTO (overseeing GATT) is not judge-and-jury in international trade disputes. It is there for purposes of negotiating the rules of trade.

The US is signatory of the GATT agreement, and nobody will understand why the US refuses to adhere to the rules. Moreover, some will think, "Well - if Uncle Same doesn't obey the rules, why should we?"

And, from there, a long-but-rapid descent to undermining all WTO oversight of international trade and - quite likely - upset it on a very, very large scale ...

One that could lead to conflict, which nobody needs or ever wants. International Trade is not just another "profit center". The manner in which a country comports itself before established rules, whatever the kind, determines the respect it earns.

EOR (End of rant ...)
 
OJT TRAINING

Let's face it, there are some industries from which we can no longer export due to inherent cost disadvantages. Why fight that fact?

For the US, I maintain that we will be creating more and better jobs that require a postsecondary degree (particularly vocational), so we should push the kids out-of-high-school into such a degree-program.

And like the EU, any postsecondary degree should be free-of-charge or as nearly "free" as possible. Otherwise many (who cannot afford it) simply will not attend postsecondary schooling if faced with a too high-cost of a vocational degree. Thus they are more prone to become unemployed. Meaning that we, the taxpayers, support them anyway.

So why not use our tax-dollars to help them avoid unemployment?

I suggest such Apprenticeship Programs as elaborated in Germany ...

Lafayette, the proposed Import Certificate policy would be of no detriment to USA governments’ budgets.
I do not wish to argue the semantics; you may consider increased prices of imported goods sold to USA purchasers as a tax, I consider it as a transfer of wealth to “cap” our annual trade deficits’ detriments to our GDPs and consequentially to our numbers of jobs and their purchasing powers while additionally being of some subsidy to our exported goods.

It’s justifiable that those who are the basic cause of trade deficit’s detriment to our economy should bear the cost of reducing those detrimental effects. Among the most basic causes of our problem are not greedy enterprises but rather due to our less than competent and well motivated U.S. Congress.

I also admire Germany’s superior educational and training achievements and agree that any improvement of our nation’s education and training systems would be reflected by greater improvements to our economic and social conditions. The enactment of an Import Certificate policy would do not hinder such efforts. Currently there’s no Import Certificate policy and yet we are not seriously attempting to enact educational or training improvements.

You’re contending that we should not attempt enact an Import Certificate policy because it will not remedy our annual trade deficits entire economic detriments? The extents of our annual trade deficit detriments to our economy and of Import Certificate policy’s ability to net improve our current conditions are the justification for enacting the policy.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
Lafayette, there are three questions on the table.
(1) Would the proposed Import certificate policy be explicitly contrary to GATT or any other of USA’s international agreements?
(2) Being mindful to question one’s answer, what provisions exist within the GATT agreement to serve USA’s purposes for modifying the agreement or (as a last resort) resigning from our participation within the agreement?
(3) Being mindful to questions one and two’s answers, what would likely to be the consequences of USA enacted the proposed Import Certificate policy? Aside from the net economic benefits due to our adopting the proposal, our methods of dealing with our international agreements that existed prior to our enacting the new policy are likely to have some net political effects within our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Lafayette, you’ve not yet responded to this request last posted 12:19 PM, May 19, 2016:
I question but do not know if your contention that Import Certificates are explicitly contrary to the GATT agreement is correct. I’ve asked for your links and your pointing to the positions of specific lines within the GATT text that you consider to be contrary to IC’s.
I’ll have to read in context the points you may provide using a public library’s computer. My computer crashes when I try to go to goggled "GATT text" sites.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Refer to the 5:41 PM, May 18, 2016 post within the thread
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/249572-usa-s-chronic-trade-deficits-2.html .

Lafayette, … 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).

A federal transferable Import Certificate act can be drafted as predicated upon its constitutionality.
An Import Certificate act would logically have some duration between commencing to issue the first transferable certificates and commencing to enforce the requirement that importers of goods into the USA must surrender certificates of sufficient “face values” to cover the assessed values of their shipments prior to it being permitted to exit its USA entry dock.

That duration between commencement dates should be sufficient for interested parties to challenge the act’s constitutionality within our federal courts.

An Import Certificate act is a unilateral law, which would not be subject to further international negotiation. Foreign nations can accommodate our Import Certificate act; their only other alternative would be to squander their portion of USA’s domestic markets.
I doubt if all nations are willing to lose and able to enforce their effective relinquishing their share of USA's domestic market places; particularly because all direct costs due to the transferable Import Certificates are passed onto USA purchasers of Imported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
You’re contending that we should not attempt enact an Import Certificate policy because it will not remedy our annual trade deficits entire economic detriments? The extents of our annual trade deficit detriments to our economy and of Import Certificate policy’s ability to net improve our current conditions are the justification for enacting the policy.

To think that Import Certificates have any impact whatsoever on Educational Policy is called "intellectual overreach".

The link between the two is extremely remote ...
______________________
 
To think that Import Certificates have any impact whatsoever on Educational Policy is called "intellectual overreach".

The link between the two is extremely remote ...
______________________

Lafayette, I did a poor copy-reading job. Is your misreading the 10:46 AM, May 20, 2016 post of this thread due to my inadvertently letting the word “do” remain included within the post?

We agree the topic of USA adopting the proposed Import Certificate policy and the topic of USA’s education and training systems are mutually exclusive topics.

Why would you conclude that I believe otherwise? Why did you contend that that striving to improve one of the problems would hinder efforts to improve the other problem?

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

Excerpted from 10:46 AM, May 20, 2016 post of this thread:

“… I also admire Germany’s superior educational and training achievements and agree that any improvement of our nation’s education and training systems would be reflected by greater improvements to our economic and social conditions. The enactment of an Import Certificate policy would do not hinder such efforts. Currently there’s no Import Certificate policy and yet we are not seriously attempting to enact educational or training improvements.

You’re contending that we should not attempt enact an Import Certificate policy because it will not remedy our annual trade deficits entire economic detriments? The extents of our annual trade deficit detriments to our economy and of Import Certificate policy’s ability to net improve our current conditions are the justification for enacting the policy”.
 
The reason the US has not used Import Certificates is because it knows that their usage cannot be justified according to Article 12. They cannot be legitimized in other than "highly specific industrial/commercial circumstances". ...

Lafayette, the concept of Import Certificates and Article 12 of the GATT are completely unrelated. Article 12 of the GATT deals with “restrictions to Safeguard the Balance of Payments [between contracting nations]”.
Assuming the USA would remain a participating member of the GATT, nothing of the Article 12’s text conflicts or requires modification to accommodate USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate proposal.
.

Article 13 deals with “Non-discriminatory Administration of Quantitative Restriction [upon products traded between contracting nations]”. We can all agree the Import Certificate proposal would indirectly (if we do not consider limiting total dollar value as a quantitive restriction) or otherwise directly limits the aggregate total values of goods being imported into the USA.

The Import Certificate proposal treats all foreign nations equally and does not discriminate among their industries or enterprises, or products. Can you find anything within article 13 that explicitly forbids tariffs? If GATT doesn’t explicitly forbid tariffs, the import certificate proposal is not contrary to the GATT.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Lafayette, although article 11 of GATT is entitled “General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions, it explicitly permits a nation to enact duties, taxes or other charges to restrict imports but the GATT does prohibit discrimination against any particular foreign nations.
Respectfully Supposn
////////////////////
"1. No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of the territory of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party".
 
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?

JoG, prior USA trade agreements would not interfere with USA adopting the Import Certificate proposal.

USA has no trade treaties and I would suppose that within our international agreements there’s explicit termination dates or a procedures for amending or terminating the agreements. This is specifically needed for agreements applicable to comparatively more impermanent applications such as trade agreements.

Specifically within the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade, (i.e. GATT), all participating nations are without prejudice may provide 6 months notice of their intention to withdraw from continued participation within such an agreement. I believe that’s the case for all the trade agreements we participate within.

It’s certainly feasible for the USA to negotiate any necessary accommodation for a nation enacting a unilateral Import certificate policy. It’s unreasonable to assume that we could not succeed to achieve such an accommodation but if such a highly unlikely and illogical situation should occur, the USA as a last resort would simply exercise our right to give notice of our resignation from such an agreement.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////
Excerpted from
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_02_e.htm#articleXXXI

Current notes:
Article XXX: Amendments
1. Except where provision for modification is made elsewhere in this Agreement, amendments to the provisions of Part I of this Agreement or the provisions of Article XXIX or of this Article shall become effective upon acceptance by all the contracting parties, and other amendments to this Agreement shall become effective, in respect of those contracting parties which accept them, upon acceptance by two-thirds of the contracting parties and thereafter for each other contracting party upon acceptance by it.

Article XXXI: Withdrawal
1. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 12 of Article XVIII, of Article XXIII or of paragraph 2 of Article XXX, any contracting party may withdraw from this Agreement, or may separately withdraw on behalf of any of the separate customs territories for which it has international responsibility and which at the time possesses full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this Agreement. The withdrawal shall take effect upon the expiration of six months from the day on which written notice of withdrawal is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
 
To think that Import Certificates have any impact whatsoever on Educational Policy is called "intellectual overreach".

The link between the two is extremely remote ...
______________________

an import certificate is in effect a tariff that would cost American consumers money, and, it would protect and cripple our industries. This is a diabolical proposal to cause rot and decay in our country.
 
an import certificate is in effect a tariff that would cost American consumers money, and, it would protect and cripple our industries. This is a diabolical proposal to cause rot and decay in our country.

James972, you’re ingenious. You contend that we are going to protect industries that barely exist or no longer exist within the USA by enacting this Import Certificate policy and that in turn will cripple the nonexistent or barely existing USA industries; but your unable to explicitly explain that?

You’re concerned that we will be able to export some goods that previously were marginally too high priced for the global market? You’re concerned that goods previously not produced in the USA because they could not compete with marginally lower priced products produced by low-wage nations will now be produced in the USA?
We all benefit from cheaper imports but they do not compensate for trade deficits drag upon our domestic production and the consequential drag upon our numbers of jobs and their wage rates. Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate drag upon their nation’s GDP.

The Import Certificate policy is substantially market driven. It is the market not the government that determines sales prices, types of goods, volumes of goods, times of shipments and destinations of and their shipments.
What obviously troubles you is that the policy will not tolerate our nation’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

The policy “caps” the total value of USA imports to the extent of our exports. If we export more, the cap increases and the indirect subsidy of USA exports decrease. If we export less, the cap’s reduced and the indirect subsidy of USA exports increase. In both cases USA’s domestic production, (i.e. GDP) is induced to increase more than otherwise; (otherwise being if this policy is not enacted).. .
You believe there’s a fault within this proposal but you cannot specifically identify and explain the fault you perceive?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Back
Top Bottom