Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree76Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 10th, 2016, 08:11 AM   #31
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,974
My question of Supposn: If there aren't enough exports to generate enough ICs to get all the imports there is a demand for, will not prices just skyrocket?

And trying to replace the goods with made in the USA products will also cost more, which is why they are being imported in the first place.

So who wins?
Thanks from coke
RNG is offline  
Old April 10th, 2016, 10:15 AM   #32
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Got it, you have no native Carp in Australia. All Carp are junk fish be it European, Asian or American. IMHO

Well, just reassemble the letters in carp.


Thanks from coke
excalibur is offline  
Old April 10th, 2016, 01:07 PM   #33
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Coke the Magnificent, the proposed unilateral transferable Import Certificate, (IC) policy is NOT “pure” free trade but it is absolutely pure competitive free enterprise.

I do not particularly welcome nor do I advocate proactively avoiding a “trade war”.
The IC policy changes the rules governing goods crossing USA borders. That change of environment changes what responses are to nations immediate and longer term best interests.

The IC proposal would work because it’s predicated upon we and all other entities behaving as what we perceive to be in our own best interests.

If USA adopted the IC proposal, any entities perpetrating any mischief to undermine USA’s economic interests would do themselves harm and USA would suffer little or no harm.
The penalties for mischief would not be due to any, (including the USA) government’s proactive efforts, but rather to the normal progression of market forces.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your basically just advocating for a form of tariffs. I am not opposed to Tariffs but the problem we have now is the lag time between re gearing the manufacturing to compete again on our own soil. 80% of our house hold goods are not only imports but their is no manufacturing base at all to produce it in the USA. Televisions, smart phones, land line phones, dvd players, clothes washer and driers. None of these are made in the USA as example right now. The bottom line is in order to implement either Tariffs or Import Certs. you must accept the price of goods will go up. That is just how it is. The smart way is to make the USA more attractable to do business, at the same time start using tariffs or import certs in a fashion that allows manufacturing to start back up without stifling the entire markets with high consumer prices. I am a big fan of industry parks where their is a reduced or no tax for start up manufacturing businesses as example.

Coke the Magnificent
coke is offline  
Old July 1st, 2016, 10:56 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
Your basically just advocating for a form of tariffs. I am not opposed to Tariffs but the problem we have now is the lag time between re gearing the manufacturing to compete again on our own soil. 80% of our house hold goods are not only imports but their is no manufacturing base at all to produce it in the USA. Televisions, smart phones, land line phones, dvd players, clothes washer and driers. None of these are made in the USA as example right now. The bottom line is in order to implement either Tariffs or Import Certs. you must accept the price of goods will go up. That is just how it is. The smart way is to make the USA more attractable to do business, at the same time start using tariffs or import certs in a fashion that allows manufacturing to start back up without stifling the entire markets with high consumer prices. I am a big fan of industry parks where their is a reduced or no tax for start up manufacturing businesses as example.

Coke the Magnificent
Coke, yes; I certainly do accept and agree that if USA adopted the Import Certificate policy, prices of foreign goods sold within USA’s domestic markets would be increase.

I’m a proponent of a unilateral substantially market driven global trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”.
If it were adopted by the USA it would almost, (if not entirely) eliminate USA’s chronic trade deficits of goods; it’s would likely increase domestic markets will increase.

But if USA adopted the Import Certificate policy, lower-wage nation’s products would be of lesser price advantage over USA’s domestic product-wage s within USA’s domestic market places.
We all benefit from cheaper foreign goods but that do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits’ drag upon our GDP, numbers of jobs and their wages’ purchasing powers. Annual trade deficits are economically net detrimental to their nations.

Because the Import Certificates behave as indirect but effective subsidy of their nation’s exported goods, they somewhat reduce USA exports price disadvantages to other nation’s products.

Industrial parks with significant tax concessions are a domestic issue effectively of no relationship to USA goods’ comparative price disadvantages to the products of low-wage nations’ products.

I’ve posted the thread “USA goods could be more price competitive”;
USA goods could be more price competitive.

Refer to Wikipedia’s "Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 1st, 2016, 02:01 PM   #35
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Coke, yes; I certainly do accept and agree that if USA adopted the Import Certificate policy, prices of foreign goods sold within USA’s domestic markets would be increase.

I’m a proponent of a unilateral substantially market driven global trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”.
If it were adopted by the USA it would almost, (if not entirely) eliminate USA’s chronic trade deficits of goods; it’s would likely increase domestic markets will increase.

But if USA adopted the Import Certificate policy, lower-wage nation’s products would be of lesser price advantage over USA’s domestic product-wage s within USA’s domestic market places.
We all benefit from cheaper foreign goods but that do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits’ drag upon our GDP, numbers of jobs and their wages’ purchasing powers. Annual trade deficits are economically net detrimental to their nations.

Because the Import Certificates behave as indirect but effective subsidy of their nation’s exported goods, they somewhat reduce USA exports price disadvantages to other nation’s products.

Industrial parks with significant tax concessions are a domestic issue effectively of no relationship to USA goods’ comparative price disadvantages to the products of low-wage nations’ products.

I’ve posted the thread “USA goods could be more price competitive”;
USA goods could be more price competitive.

Refer to Wikipedia’s "Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn
The problem is your going to raise the price of consumer goods to attempt to make US exports more marketable. The United States has no large scale exports short of agriculture and raw materials. The reason we have that is because other nations do not have the ability to produce agriculture commodities and raw materials (iron ore as example). We should be producing more consumer goods instead of exporting. The problem is competing with lower taxed markets and cheap labor. US exports is not the problem, its to many US imports. Tariffs with a over all economic package including tax reduction for manufactured goods in the USA would be the best route to go. The market for US manufacturing is its own people, not necessarily the entire world.
coke is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2016, 10:37 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
The problem is your going to raise the price of consumer goods to attempt to make US exports more marketable. ... The problem is competing with lower taxed markets and cheap labor. US exports is not the problem, its to many US imports. Tariffs with a over all economic package including tax reduction for manufactured goods in the USA would be the best route to go. The market for US manufacturing is its own people, not necessarily the entire world.
Coke, we all benefit from cheaper imports, HOWEVER trade deficits drag upon their nation’s numbers of jobs and wage levels.

[Increases of a nations’ annual trade balance are positive direct increasers their nation’s GDP. Reductions of a nation’s annual trade balance are in effect net NEGATIVE exports and the act as drags upon their nation’s GDP. A nation’s lesser GDP, (i.e. lesser domestic production) drags upon their nation’s numbers of jobs which drags upon their wage levels. Reduced employment and/or reduced wage levels in turn are further drags upon their nation’s GDP].

The benefits of cheaper imported goods do not fully compensate for trade deficits net detriment to the nation’s economy. Trade deficits detriment are a net detriment to the nation’s employees, their dependents and any others that are dependent upon enterprises or other entities that are negatively affected by the reduced circumstances of employees.


I’m a proponent of a particular version of Import Certificates; refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.

If we will consider importing and exporting as a single industry of global trading, the unilateral substantially market driven Import Certificate proposal does not favor or disfavor any industry. It would be of some advantage to any USA producer, (even foreign enterprises with USA subsidiaries producing within the USA), that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods ANYWHERE, (i.e. but particularly within USA’s domestic market places).

Although I believe that policy would greatly boost USA manufacturing, the only certainty is that it would increase USA’s total domestic production of USA’s aggregate industries more than otherwise; (otherwise being if USA’s global trade policies are not changed).

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2016, 10:54 AM   #37
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Coke, we all benefit from cheaper imports, HOWEVER trade deficits drag upon their nation’s numbers of jobs and wage levels.

[Increases of a nations’ annual trade balance are positive direct increasers their nation’s GDP. Reductions of a nation’s annual trade balance are in effect net NEGATIVE exports and the act as drags upon their nation’s GDP. A nation’s lesser GDP, (i.e. lesser domestic production) drags upon their nation’s numbers of jobs which drags upon their wage levels. Reduced employment and/or reduced wage levels in turn are further drags upon their nation’s GDP].

The benefits of cheaper imported goods do not fully compensate for trade deficits net detriment to the nation’s economy. Trade deficits detriment are a net detriment to the nation’s employees, their dependents and any others that are dependent upon enterprises or other entities that are negatively affected by the reduced circumstances of employees.


I’m a proponent of a particular version of Import Certificates; refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.

If we will consider importing and exporting as a single industry of global trading, the unilateral substantially market driven Import Certificate proposal does not favor or disfavor any industry. It would be of some advantage to any USA producer, (even foreign enterprises with USA subsidiaries producing within the USA), that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods ANYWHERE, (i.e. but particularly within USA’s domestic market places).

Although I believe that policy would greatly boost USA manufacturing, the only certainty is that it would increase USA’s total domestic production of USA’s aggregate industries more than otherwise; (otherwise being if USA’s global trade policies are not changed).

Respectfully, Supposn
Your continued assumption that such an action wouldn't trigger retaliatory tariffs is the weakness of your argument.

Plus I fear there is little more than hope to suggest that the increase in cost of living would be more than compensated for by an increase in domestic manufacturing.
Thanks from coke
RNG is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2016, 11:03 AM   #38
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
I support some tariffs, but I would only tariff goods that our being manufactured in the USA, at the same time we should have tax free manufacturing business start ups. We have to rebuild our manufacturing base at the same time. We can start building household appliances again, small engines, even electronics. But, we have to compete with the world, and the only way we can do that is lower the tax rate and use tariffs.
Thanks from Sabcat
coke is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2016, 11:15 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
... The United States has no large scale exports short of agriculture and raw materials. The reason we have that is because other nations do not have the ability to produce agriculture commodities and raw materials (iron ore as example). We should be producing more consumer goods instead of exporting. The problem is competing with lower taxed markets and cheap labor. US exports is not the problem, its to many US imports. Tariffs with a over all economic package including tax reduction for manufactured goods in the USA would be the best route to go.
Coke, the Import Certificate policy does not “to raise the price of consumer goods to attempt to make US exports more marketable”.
The federal that exporters of USA goods CHOOSE TO PAY are (by law) set only to defray direct federal costs for assessing the values of globally traded goods and administering the policy.
Among the MANY advantages of Import certificates over tariffs is they are an indirect but effective subsidy of their nation’s exported goods.
The Wikipedia article “Import Certificates” describes a self-funded policy. All net costs are paid by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Tax reductions for the favored few shift the tax burden upon all other taxpayers and/or increase federal debt.

USA would export very little agricultural products if the U.S. Department of Agriculture would cease spending taxpayer’s money to directly subsidize exports of USA price supported agricultural products.
If you eliminated those items from the lists of globally traded goods, I would suppose that the USA does not enjoy a great trade surplus of agricultural goods. If it were not for federal restrictions upon agricultural goods entering into the USA, I suppose we would have a great trade deficit of agricultural goods.

I do not have commodity export and import figures before me but I doubt if the USA exports much Iron ore, or steel, or iron. We cannot compete with lower- wage foreign producers of such goods. We have squandered our great manufacturing industries; those remaining USA enterprises that do have a need for such goods are purchasing imported goods.

Although I believe that policy would greatly boost USA manufacturing, the only certainty is that it would increase USA’s total domestic production of USA’s aggregate industries more than otherwise; (otherwise being if USA’s global trade policies are not changed).

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2016, 11:33 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
My question of Supposn: If there aren't enough exports to generate enough ICs to get all the imports there is a demand for, will not prices just skyrocket?

And trying to replace the goods with made in the USA products will also cost more, which is why they are being imported in the first place.

So who wins?
Walmart.
Thanks from coke
skews13 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
chronic, deficits, global trade, imports, jobs, trade, trade deficits, usa’s, wages



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations’ GDPs. Supposn Economics 10 May 13th, 2014 12:16 PM
A Chronic Case of Obamnesia Truth Detector Current Events 1 November 6th, 2012 08:40 AM
Chronic Fatigue Economy Truth Detector Current Events 1 November 1st, 2012 05:30 PM
Trade Deficits Are Always Detrimental To Their Nations’ Gdps. Supposn U.S. Federal Policy 0 March 28th, 2011 11:08 AM
Chronic Malnutrition in Gaza intangible child Crime and Punishment 0 November 18th, 2008 09:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.