- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,819
- Reaction score
- 281
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You mean if you put tariff tax on already overtaxed American consumers at the point of a gun, protected and crippled American industry, and didn't start a trade war that led to a real war. You have a really great idea there!!!USA goods could compete with marginally under-priced products of low-wage nations.
That bill would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods,
any govt can make a trade deficit illegal by raising the price of imports until Americans can no longer afford to buy them. But then American consumers would be stuck buying American made junk at an even higher price. Its a perfectly liberal formula to impoverish Americans.
any govt can make a trade deficit illegal by raising the price of imports until Americans can no longer afford to buy them. But then American consumers would be stuck buying American made junk at an even higher price.
Its a perfectly liberal formula to impoverish Americans.
James972, I’m supposing that you’re referring to a tariff policy. It’s conceivable that a tariff policy could eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods but to do the federal tariff rate would need to be drastically high and could very well effectively eliminate all USA’s imports.
Within the proposal as described by Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article, the rate of price increases of imports within USA domestic markets, beyond federal government’s direct expenditures for administration and value assessment tasks, are market (rather than government determined).
This market determined portion of Import’s price increase rates’ also serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA exported goods to foreign purchasers.
Regardless of the additional price increases to USA purchasers of imports, USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods would be eliminated or almost eliminated. This would be true even if the additional, prices were only pennies per transactions. The policy could not and would not prevent any item from being imported into the USA if there’s effective USA demand for that item.
Refer to http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...ariffs-and-import-certificate-policies-3.html
Respectfully, Supposn
Of course if import prices are market driven then we have free trade, not import certificate tariff taxes to impoverish Americans.
James972, your preference is USA’s seeking of ‘pure’ Free trade rather than Import Certificates policies’ consequential increase of our GDP and numbers of jobs (more than otherwise)? You describe these consequences as impoverishing Americans, or your more amiable to accepting Import Certificate policy because it's substantially more market rather than government driven?
Respectfully, Supposn
the more you restrict free trade the poorer people get. Imagine if you had to make everything yourself? Imagine if your city had to make everything itself??
This is a rather good point. If we take protectionism and continue to deduce it to states or cities, such that Illinois has less gross state product and employment because it imports steel, sand, and transportation services from Indiana. We can deduce the reasoning even further, and apply it to individual cities, who lose out on valuable production when citizens/businesses work/invest outside of their respective cities. In fact, we would all be better off if we produced and serviced everything we need on an individual level!
the more you restrict free trade the poorer people get. Imagine if you had to make everything yourself? Imagine if your city had to make everything itself??
This is a rather good point. If we take protectionism and continue to deduce it to states or cities, such that Illinois has less gross state product and employment because it imports steel, sand, and transportation services from Indiana. We can deduce the reasoning even further, and apply it to individual cities, who lose out on valuable production when citizens/businesses work/invest outside of their respective cities. In fact, we would all be better off if we produced and serviced everything we need on an individual level!
Kushinator, regarding USA's interstate commerce and its analogy to our global trade policies:
delegates from the various American states and commonwealths attending the USA’s constitutional convention of 1787 were very much aware of some among them represented constituencies that were or would likely be at competitive commercial advantage to those represented by other delegates.
Despite their allegiances to competing governments, they managed to compromise among themselves and support a federal government. They risked their personal and political reputations which must have to some extent risked their individual finances, for what they hoped would prove to be of mutual net benefit to all in our then new nation.
[Their behavior contrasts with the congresses during President Obama’s administration where federal representatives and senators ordinarily voted contrary to what they previously had contended was to our nation’s best interests, because they preferred to delay or hinder our nation’s progress rather than permit any improvement of our nation to be attributed to a person or a political party they believed to be unworthy of occupying the White House.
I hope this despicable precedent will not be continued under President Donald Trump’s administration].
If you believe that USA states are not now as they were then in competitive commercial competition, you’re mistaken. The justification of our constitution’s granting supreme jurisdiction of interstate and international commerce to our federal government was due to the realization that our states and regions are naturally in commercial and economic competition with each other and federal supreme jurisdiction was and remains to our aggregate nation’s net best interests.
My allegiance to the USA, (i.e. my nation) is not secondary to consideration for any other concept of a regional or global entities. I’m not amiable to improving USA’s foreign relations by compromising USA’s best economic interests, and particularly compromising the financial interests of USA employees, their dependents, and all enterprises to the extent of their net benefits due to improved financial conditions of USA’s middle income earners.
Respectfully, Supposn
The deductive analysis was just an exercise to exemplify how poorly the logical reasoning is applied for supporters for protectionist.
Protectionism reduces trade, and with it aggregate production and standard of living. If you really cared about the American public, you wouldn't continue to push such nonsense under the guise of nationalism. Trade isn't a zero sum game. State commerce would behave as you prescribe for U.S. trade policy if this were the case. We all benefit from trade, just not in the same instances (employment/prices/availability/choice).
Kushinator, your post doesn’t offer any logical and/or specific and/or explicit argument contrary to the concept of the proposed Import Certificate policy for USA’s global trade.
Refer to Wikipedia’s Import Certificates” for an explicit description of the proposal.
Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn,
Your posts are the same every time you create a thread. A trade deficit is not always detrimental to GDP, nor is a trade deficit detrimental to U.S. production. Refer to a plethora of international trade literature, or the economics behind trade theory. I'm sure there are wikipedia articles, and i am sure you've been made aware of this for many years now.
Kush
p.s.
My logical rebuttal was provided initially, which you failed to address.
Xelor, many, if not most of your statements I've quoted above are fully or substantially incorrect. You are partially correct that within the Import Certificate, (IC) policy, U.S. consumers will have more items of U.S. goods available to them and they will purchase more of such goods.
The IC policy is substantially market rather than government driven. If there's effective demand for any foreign product, The IC policy could not prevent that item from being imported into the USA. Within IC policy, normal market behaviors also reduce prices paid for USA's exports which hopefully will promotes our export volumes.
Regardless of other nations' reactions to a USA import Certificate policy, our GDP and numbers of jobs will increase more than otherwise. Your analysis of Import Certificate policy is faulty.
I appreciate your desire to keep this thread on topic. If you wish, I'd be please to continue discussing the pro's and cons of “Import Certificates” comparison to tariffs or to pure free trade policies within the threads,
https://www.debatepolitics.com/econ...ariffs-and-import-certificate-policies-3.html
or
https://www.debatepolitics.com/econ...under-priced-products-low-wage-nations-2.html
I don't wish to continue discussing IC's with you. Why would I ?I appreciate your desire to keep this thread on topic. If you wish, I'd be please to continue discussing the pro's and cons of “Import Certificates” comparison to tariffs or to pure free trade policies within the threads,
https://www.debatepolitics.com/econ...ariffs-and-import-certificate-policies-3.html
or
https://www.debatepolitics.com/econ...under-priced-products-low-wage-nations-2.html
Respectfully, Supposn
Xelor, I haven't yet read your http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_538.pdf link because we haven't yet began deeper discussions of the Import Certificate proposal.I don't wish to continue discussing IC's with you. Why would I ?
Given both those disingenuous behaviors, no, I haven't a desire to continue with you a conversation on a technical economics topic .
- You don't read the content I reference to support my remarks: Buffett proposed his IC idea in 2003. In about 2008/-9 Papadimitriou and Zezza performed a full-on analysis of Buffett's idea, yesterday, I paraphrased some points from their analysis, and provided a link to that analysis, and your response to it, is to baldly declare their analysis (not mine, I merely summarized it) " fully or substantially incorrect"
- You misrepresent my remarks: I wrote "buy proportionately more U.S. made goods" which you decided to convert into simply "will purchase more [U.S.] goods."
Frankly, it's not clear to me what the nature of our discussion has to do with it; the IC idea captures your interest, so I'd think you'd have consumed the content found at the Wiki entry you referenced. (That paper is the third external reference listed on the Wiki page.) The only reason I read it is because it's there.Xelor, I haven't yet read your http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_538.pdf link because we haven't yet began deeper discussions of the Import Certificate proposal.
Then I suggest you read Papadimitriou et al's paper to which I referred/linked. You should probably read Bhandari's description of his trade equilibrium alternative approach to Buffett's proposal and his high level propositional (rather than empirical) comparison and contrast of his idea and Buffets. (the compare/contrast is also linked in the Wiki article, but his original exposition is not; you'll find it at the link in the preceding sentence.)I'm (thus far) convinced that the Import Certificates proposal would increase USA's GDP more than otherwise.
Okay.I mistakenly thought you concurred that USA consumers would proportionally purchase more USA goods, and spend more adjusted, or unadjusted U.S. Dollars. I (perceived no difference between using the word ”proportional” or the word “more”.
It explicitly and comprehensively analyzes Buffett's proposal.Your link discusses (I suppose) the proposed Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006 that was based upon Warren Buffett's and Carol Loomis's Fortune magazine article.
That was clear from your earlier remarks.I'm a proponent of the proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article which net costs are passed onto USA's purchasers of imported goods. I believe that's the both the politically and economically best funding method. I'm opposed to it being eventually paid for by our government.
Okay.I mistakenly thought you concurred that USA consumers would proportionally purchase more USA goods, and spend more adjusted, or unadjusted U.S. Dollars. I (perceived no difference between using the word ”proportional” or the word “more”.
It explicitly and comprehensively analyzes Buffett's proposal.Your link discusses (I suppose) the proposed Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006 that was based upon Warren Buffett's and Carol Loomis's Fortune magazine article.
That was clear from your earlier remarks.I'm a proponent of the proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article which net costs are passed onto USA's purchasers of imported goods. I believe that's the both the politically and economically best funding method. I'm opposed to it being eventually paid for by our government.
Bold text --> I'm not sure what you mean.I'm a proponent of the proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article which net costs are passed onto USA's purchasers of imported goods. I believe that's the both the politically and economically best funding method. I'm opposed to it being eventually paid for by our government.
Bold text --> As you may have inferred from reading my above expressed uncertainty of your meaning, I am again unclear about what you mean.I'm a proponent of the proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article which net costs are passed onto USA's purchasers of imported goods. I believe that's the both the politically and economically best funding method. I'm opposed to it being eventually paid for by our government.
... Your link discusses (I suppose) the proposed Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006 that was based upon Warren Buffett's and Carol Loomis's Fortune magazine article.
I'm a proponent of the proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article which net costs are passed onto USA's purchasers of imported goods. I believe that's the both the politically and economically best funding method. I'm opposed to it being eventually paid for by our government.
Wikipedia's proposal's not applicable to the values of specific precious or scarce mineral materials integral to products passing through USA's borders. Permitting the proposal to be applicable to precious or scarce minerals is both economically unsound and would seriously undermine the proposal's purpose.
I haven't yet considered if and how these differences may have affected the Levy Institute's conclusions. ...
Xelor, I regret that we're getting entangled with more petty details, rather than discussing what you and I would consider to be the broader considerations with regard to the Import Certificate concept.Part IV
Bold text --> As you may have inferred from reading my above expressed uncertainty of your meaning, I am again unclear about what you mean.
I suspect here you mean the creation and distribution of the certificates themselves and the processes of doing so. To the extent that is what you mean....
- Funding what?
- What "it?"
Let me put it succinctly: Papadimitriou et al did not evaluate the Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006. Read the paper.Unless I explicitly mention any exceptions, all of my posts are in regard to the “improved” Import Certificate proposal as described in the Wikipedia “Import Certificates” article. That proposal differs from the proposed Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006 which I suppose Levy Institute evaluated. “Buffetts proposal” is a much less explicit suggestion rather than a more explicitly drafted proposal.
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?