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 concept‘s much more market rather than government driven.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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”.
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 ... ?
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.
___________________
I don't see they improve things much either.
They who? IC's or the GATT?
Export certificates.
________________________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.
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.
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 ...
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 ...
______________________
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". ...
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?