Political Forums  

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


Thanks Tree76Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 3rd, 2016, 10:47 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
@Supposn: ...Historically I am not aware of any trade limitation legislation helping the general population in the long term in the modern era. And I only limit it to the modern era because my knowledge of this history is weak.
RNG, you may be essentially correct; I don’t doubt it.
The first published mention, (that I'm aware of) regarding this trade policy concept was written by Warren Buffet and one of Fortune magazine's editors. I think it was the Feb 2003 edition.

I can't continue responding. My grandchildren are calling me to play with them.
Until next time, Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke

Last edited by Supposn; July 3rd, 2016 at 10:49 AM.
Supposn is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 10:52 AM   #52
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, I wish no ill will to any nation’s laborers but I’m unwilling that USA’s numbers of jobs and their purchasing power should be less than otherwise because other nations’ governments are unwilling and/or unable to better compensate their own workers.

USA’s Marshall Plan was both altruistic and served our foreign policy goals. Marshall Plan’s net costs effectively were entirely federal costs accounted for within our federal budgets and funded by federal debt and all federal taxpayers.
USA’s annual trade deficits are not direct causes of federal expenditures and do not appear in our annual federal budgets.

USA’s trade deficits economic detriments reduce the revenues of USA’s employees, their dependents and all others to any extent that they are dependent upon enterprises which are also detrimentally affected by the reduced circumstances of USA’s employees.

My greater concern is for USA’s net economy and our middle income earning segment of our population, rather than for foreign opinions and reactions to our trade policies.

Respectfully, Supposn
That's all well and good, but sidesteps my point that retaliatory tariffs could very well end up harming the US economy.
Thanks from coke
RNG is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 11:15 AM   #53
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,500
Tarrifs in place of the income tax I am all for it. If they are not replacing anything I vote no.
Thanks from coke
Sabcat is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 11:18 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, you may be essentially correct; I don’t doubt it.
The first published mention, (that I'm aware of) regarding this trade policy concept was written by Warren Buffet and one of Fortune magazine's editors. I think it was the Feb 2003 edition.

I can't continue responding. My grandchildren are calling me to play with them.
Until next time, Respectfully, Supposn
RNG talks gibberish but makes a good point on an rare occasion.
Thanks from coke
Twisted Sister is online now  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 12:56 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
RNG, transcript of your July 3, 2016, 2:52 PM post:
Originally Posted by Supposn:
RNG, I wish no ill will to any nation’s laborers but I’m unwilling that USA’s numbers of jobs and their purchasing power should be less than otherwise because other nations’ governments are unwilling and/or unable to better compensate their own workers.

USA’s Marshall Plan was both altruistic and served our foreign policy goals. Marshall Plan’s net costs effectively were entirely federal costs accounted for within our federal budgets and funded by federal debt and all federal taxpayers.
USA’s annual trade deficits are not direct causes of federal expenditures and do not appear in our annual federal budgets.

USA’s trade deficits economic detriments reduce the revenues of USA’s employees, their dependents and all others to any extent that they are dependent upon enterprises which are also detrimentally affected by the reduced circumstances of USA’s employees.

My greater concern is for USA’s net economy and our middle income earning segment of our population, rather than for foreign opinions and reactions to our trade policies.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
That's all well and good, but sidesteps my point that retaliatory tariffs could very well end up harming the US economy.
RNG, sidestepped??? I was very explicit in today’s 4:13 AM post and my response at 2:29 PM today I equally explicit.

ANY entity (regardless of their power or prominence), that would attempt to retaliating against USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would harm themselves at no less extent that they would attempt to undermine USA’s global trade. This harm would befall them even if the USA did nothing pro-active to punish them. Due to the characteristics of an Import Certificate trade policy, it would be the normal behavior of global market places rather than the USA that would inflict the punishment for their mischief.

Their mischief could do little to harm the USA. We now suffer much more due to the accumulative harm of our chronic annual trade deficits. Within a duration exceeding a half century the USA has every year experienced an annual trade deficit of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 01:30 PM   #56
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
RNG, transcript of your July 3, 2016, 2:52 PM post:
Originally Posted by Supposn:
RNG, I wish no ill will to any nation’s laborers but I’m unwilling that USA’s numbers of jobs and their purchasing power should be less than otherwise because other nations’ governments are unwilling and/or unable to better compensate their own workers.

USA’s Marshall Plan was both altruistic and served our foreign policy goals. Marshall Plan’s net costs effectively were entirely federal costs accounted for within our federal budgets and funded by federal debt and all federal taxpayers.
USA’s annual trade deficits are not direct causes of federal expenditures and do not appear in our annual federal budgets.

USA’s trade deficits economic detriments reduce the revenues of USA’s employees, their dependents and all others to any extent that they are dependent upon enterprises which are also detrimentally affected by the reduced circumstances of USA’s employees.

My greater concern is for USA’s net economy and our middle income earning segment of our population, rather than for foreign opinions and reactions to our trade policies.

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



RNG, sidestepped??? I was very explicit in today’s 4:13 AM post and my response at 2:29 PM today I equally explicit.

ANY entity (regardless of their power or prominence), that would attempt to retaliating against USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would harm themselves at no less extent that they would attempt to undermine USA’s global trade. This harm would befall them even if the USA did nothing pro-active to punish them. Due to the characteristics of an Import Certificate trade policy, it would be the normal behavior of global market places rather than the USA that would inflict the punishment for their mischief.

Their mischief could do little to harm the USA. We now suffer much more due to the accumulative harm of our chronic annual trade deficits. Within a duration exceeding a half century the USA has every year experienced an annual trade deficit of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
I think we need to clarify something. Now you correct me if I am wrong. You are advocating for a system, that Buffet championed if I remember correctly, that may place a fee on a retailer/corporation for selling imported goods and its called import certificate. You can offset this cost by redeeming the cost of those certificates with exports. The importer only receives import certificates that is equal in value to the exports. The entity that holds these import certificates can then sell them to allow for more imports, but the value of the import certificates will never be more than the value of exports. I will assume that is correct or within the boundaries of what you are advocating for.

For starters, all this will do is drive down the supply of goods thus raising the cost of those goods due to the lack of supply opposed to the high demand. The extra costs on many of those goods would far exceed the cost of the import certificate. Furthermore it does nothing to address the lack of manufacturing in the USA. Unless your going to say that this increase in prices will force manufacturing to begin in the United States. This idea might have some merit if you started out with a relatively neutral import/export ratio, but it seems to me it would be economic suicide to implement this idea with such a horrendous trade deficit. The last great trade policy was Ronald Reagan and quotas. Now this is something that is very important to understand. Reagan only sought to implement quotas on things that was threatening current US manufacturing. If your not manufacturing that item, then its nuts to place another tax on it. With tariffs you can pick and choose items to tariff. For instance, automobiles or motorcycles or electric guitars or yes guns. We manufacture those items. We could use tariffs to offset the child labor and slave wages and currency manipulation, but we could only use those tariffs on items we currently manufacture. You cant just put a blanket tax on every import. You have to be selective. At the same time we got to incentive honest manufacturing in the USA. We have to offer 0 tax and other things to corporations willing to begin manufacture goods again in the USA.
coke is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 06:02 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Where does that money to subsidize the manufacturing come from? From importers, who have to charge more to offset the cost of the certificates. Thus the public loses.
RNG, within a transferable Import Certificate policy it is the ultimate purchaser of imported goods that pay all of their government’s direct expenditures due to the trade policy.
It is reasonable that persons directly causing USA annual trade deficits’ detriment to our nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs and their wage’s lesser purchasing powers pay for the remedy to the harm they caused.

While reducing our trade deficit and acting as an indirect but effective booster of USA exports, a transferable Import Certificate policy would increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and our wages’ purchasing powers more than otherwise.

You question who would gain or lose due to this policy?

Foreign producers and exporters of foreign goods being shipped into the USA and/or the importers of those goods entering the USA certainly would not benefit (although their additional costs due to the trade policy will be passed onto USA final purchasers of their foreign produced goods).

But to some extent if you are an employee dependent upon your USA wages, or a dependent of such An employee, or are to some extent dependent upon an enterprise that's detrimentally affected by USA employees poorer circumstances, then you to some extent are a net beneficiary of this trade proposal’s consequences.
If your enterprise net benefits from an increase of USA’s gross domestic product, you’re your enterprise would be a net beneficiary of this trade proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 06:10 PM   #58
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, within a transferable Import Certificate policy it is the ultimate purchaser of imported goods that pay all of their government’s direct expenditures due to the trade policy.
It is reasonable that persons directly causing USA annual trade deficits’ detriment to our nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs and their wage’s lesser purchasing powers pay for the remedy to the harm they caused.

While reducing our trade deficit and acting as an indirect but effective booster of USA exports, a transferable Import Certificate policy would increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and our wages’ purchasing powers more than otherwise.

You question who would gain or lose due to this policy?

Foreign producers and exporters of foreign goods being shipped into the USA and/or the importers of those goods entering the USA certainly would not benefit (although their additional costs due to the trade policy will be passed onto USA final purchasers of their foreign produced goods).

But to some extent if you are an employee dependent upon your USA wages, or a dependent of such An employee, or are to some extent dependent upon an enterprise that's detrimentally affected by USA employees poorer circumstances, then you to some extent are a net beneficiary of this trade proposal’s consequences.
If your enterprise net benefits from an increase of USA’s gross domestic product, you’re your enterprise would be a net beneficiary of this trade proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn
And if you buy coffee you are paying more, if you buy bananas you are paying more. If you buy a TV, whether it is imported, or manufactured by more expensive US labor you are paying more.

It is the consumer who pays.
Thanks from Sabcat and coke
RNG is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 06:45 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
I think we need to clarify something. Now you correct me if I am wrong. You are advocating for a system, that Buffet championed if I remember correctly, that may place a fee on a retailer/corporation for selling imported goods and its called import certificate. ...
Coke, the 3d sentence of your post, (a declarative sentence) is incorrect.
You wrote, “You are advocating for a system, that Buffet championed if I remember correctly, that may place a fee on a retailer/corporation for selling imported goods and its called import certificate”.
Coke, no retailer or corporation is asked or instructed or mandated pay a fee because they sold imported goods.

Your post goes on to describe something that is not similar to what’s more explicitly described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
Rather than discussing what you believe to recall within your memory, it would be helpful if you quoted the actual Wikipedia paragraph you wish to discuss and then we can go on from there.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 07:37 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And if you buy coffee you are paying more, if you buy bananas you are paying more. If you buy a TV, whether it is imported, or manufactured by more expensive US labor you are paying more.

It is the consumer who pays.
RNG, yes that’s exactly as it should be.

Why would you believe the consumer is entitled to free coffee or free lunch? Why should our nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs and their wages’ purchasing powers be less because you believe you’re FULLY entitled to the absolutely optimum possible cheapest prices obtainable due to other nation’s lesser wage compensations?

Under an Import certificate policy there will be cheaper foreign goods in USA’s domestic markets but not sufficiently cheap enough to drag down USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and their wages purchasing powers.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn 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 07:40 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 08:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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