- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,819
- Reaction score
- 281
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: USA goods could compete with marginally under-priced products of low-wage nations
What do mean by “tracking”? Any information other than the date of issue and the “face value” that would appear or be linked to an Import Certificate, are only to facilitate the detection of fraud, such as counterfeiting. The information serves a purpose similar to serial numbers on U.S. Dollars.
Although tariff, quota, and Import Certificate policy all some what increase prices to purchasers of imported goods, there are distinct differences and consequences due to each of the proposed policies. You cannot determine they have similar faults until you determine that they are similarly vulnerable to those faults. There are even significant differences with the Import proposal brought up in 2006 U.S. Senate, and the Wikipedia proposal. I'm among the proponent of the Wikipedia proposal.
Since levy Institute has critiqued the 2006 proposal, and I'm among the advocates for the Wikipedia proposal, let's start by discussing their commonly shared points. What's the point of discussing what neither of us favor?
Respectfully, Supposn
Xelor, Import Certificate proposals effectively “cap” their nation's volume of imported goods to their volume of exported goods; (i.e. maximum imports are effectively pegged to a variable, MARKET DETERMINED statistic). If your link considers this to be a quota, and addresses the differences between this and a fixed numerical quota and NON-MARKET determined variables, then there's some reason to consider your link.Part IV ... The import certificates are little more than a means to an end, they are not the end or an end. As noted above and in my prior post the Buffet proposal is nothing other than a quota. It happens to be a variable rather than static quota, but it's a quota all the same. (If you haven't yet watched one of the quota videos, you may want to do so now for the following won't make sense to you if you don't have a keen understanding of quotas.)
The certificates merely (1) allow for tracking and (2) quantifiably establish a privilege to import goods into the U.S. Ancillary to those primary purposes the certificates can be used to create a new market, the market for the certificates themselves. Put another way, the market in which people/firms purchase the privilege to import goods into the U.S.
- Static quota --> X quantity or X dollar-value of goods can be imported.
- Variable quota --> The quantity/dollar-value of goods that can be imported is a function of something. In "Buffet," it's a function of the value of goods exported; thus the more of our stuff that foreign consumers purchase (technically speaking, import into their country; whether the final consumer, rather than intermediate consumers, purchase the goods isn't relevant), the more of their stuff we'll allow their nation's (or nations') producers to export to the U.S.
If you watched either of the quota videosI posted earlier, you'll recall that tariffs and quotas are the same things. Insofar as they are, it likely occurs to you that the notion of purchasing a privilege to import has exactly the same economic substance as an exemption/exception from being subject to a tariff. The only difference between them is tactical. ...
What do mean by “tracking”? Any information other than the date of issue and the “face value” that would appear or be linked to an Import Certificate, are only to facilitate the detection of fraud, such as counterfeiting. The information serves a purpose similar to serial numbers on U.S. Dollars.
Although tariff, quota, and Import Certificate policy all some what increase prices to purchasers of imported goods, there are distinct differences and consequences due to each of the proposed policies. You cannot determine they have similar faults until you determine that they are similarly vulnerable to those faults. There are even significant differences with the Import proposal brought up in 2006 U.S. Senate, and the Wikipedia proposal. I'm among the proponent of the Wikipedia proposal.
Since levy Institute has critiqued the 2006 proposal, and I'm among the advocates for the Wikipedia proposal, let's start by discussing their commonly shared points. What's the point of discussing what neither of us favor?
Respectfully, Supposn