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, 07:48 PM   #61
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
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
Quote:
Buffett's plan proposes creating a market for transferable import certificates, (ICs) that would represent the right to import a certain dollar amount of goods into the United States. These transferable ICs would be issued to US exporters in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the goods they export and they could only be utilized once. They could be sold or traded to importers, who must purchase them in order to legally import goods into the USA. The price of ICs are set by (free-market) forces, and are therefore dependent on the balance between entrepreneurs' willingness to pay the ICs market price for importing goods into the USA and the global volume of goods exported from the USA, (i.e. supply and demand).

Proceeds from the sale of ICs would encourage exporters (who would gain that extra money in addition to the proceeds of their exports) and discourage importers (who would need to pay the additional cost to acquire ICs as well as the cost to acquire the goods they are importing). This system would essentially create a broad-based tariff on imports to the United States, and subsidy for exports – compare cap and trade, which creates a similar market in pollution.

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:

They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.

Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).

The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates
coke is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2016, 08:23 PM   #62
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
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
You really like to twist things don't you. When have I ever said anything about free stuff? Don't make things up.
Thanks from coke
RNG is offline  
Old July 4th, 2016, 06:18 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
You really like to twist things don't you. When have I ever said anything about free stuff? Don't make things up.
RNG, transcript of your 10:10 PM, July 3, 2016 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”.
/////////////////////////////////

The wording and tone of your post led me to suspect that you’re opposed to USA purchasers of imported good paying the net direct federal costs due to any policy meant to remedy or reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits’ net harm to our economy.
(Other respondents to your post seemed to have similarly drawn that same implication from your post).

I apologize if I misunderstand what you were communicating.
Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 4th, 2016, 06:27 AM   #64
Senior Member
 
jetson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Adelaide. South Australia.
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, transcript of your 10:10 PM, July 3, 2016 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”.
/////////////////////////////////

The wording and tone of your post led me to suspect that you’re opposed to USA purchasers of imported good paying the net direct federal costs due to any policy meant to remedy or reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits’ net harm to our economy.
(Other respondents to your post seemed to have similarly drawn that same implication from your post).

I apologize if I misunderstand what you were communicating.
Respectfully, Supposn
If I take a shit am I shitting more?
Thanks from coke
jetson is offline  
Old July 4th, 2016, 06:49 AM   #65
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, transcript of your 10:10 PM, July 3, 2016 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”.
/////////////////////////////////

The wording and tone of your post led me to suspect that you’re opposed to USA purchasers of imported good paying the net direct federal costs due to any policy meant to remedy or reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits’ net harm to our economy.
(Other respondents to your post seemed to have similarly drawn that same implication from your post).

I apologize if I misunderstand what you were communicating.
Respectfully, Supposn
When is paying less getting it free? What other poster seems to have thought that?

And I still ask, do you have any empirical data to show that such a scheme would result in a greater good?
Thanks from coke
RNG is offline  
Old July 4th, 2016, 07:00 AM   #66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
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
Coke, OK; you posted the entire Wikipedia article with no accompanying questions or comments.

Which of its paragraphs do you wish to specifically discuss? What’s your comment or question regarding the specific paragraph you select to discuss?
Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke
Supposn is offline  
Old July 4th, 2016, 08:15 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
When is paying less getting it free? What other poster seems to have thought that?

And I still ask, do you have any empirical data to show that such a scheme would result in a greater good?
RNG, refer to the 10:18 AM, July 4, 2016 post. Additionally Sabcat and Coke’s thanks for your 10:10 PM, JULY 3, 2016 post implies their agreement with it.

The transferable Import Certificate trade policy was mentioned in a publication of 2003. I’m unaware of it ever having been mentioned within anything published prior to 2003. It’s a new concept that has never been enacted.
The concept is logical and nothing that’s been attempted or done has succeeded. USA’s trade deficits detriments to our economy are cumulative. Thus far our economy has not kept abreast with the word’s improving public and production infrastructure, and much of our technology, education and training are wanting.

What we’re doing isn’t working.
Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke

Last edited by Supposn; July 4th, 2016 at 08:19 AM.
Supposn is offline  
Old July 4th, 2016, 08:59 AM   #68
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, refer to the 10:18 AM, July 4, 2016 post. Additionally Sabcat and Coke’s thanks for your 10:10 PM, JULY 3, 2016 post implies their agreement with it.

The transferable Import Certificate trade policy was mentioned in a publication of 2003. I’m unaware of it ever having been mentioned within anything published prior to 2003. It’s a new concept that has never been enacted.
The concept is logical and nothing that’s been attempted or done has succeeded. USA’s trade deficits detriments to our economy are cumulative. Thus far our economy has not kept abreast with the word’s improving public and production infrastructure, and much of our technology, education and training are wanting.

What we’re doing isn’t working.
Respectfully, Supposn
First, coke thanks every statement so that is irrelevant. Sabcat agreed with myu saying that these certificates would increase costs for consumers. Nothing to do with free stuff. That's what you made up, the free stuff part.

These certificates do not materially differ from any import tariffs where the government then uses the revenues to subsidize exports, other than that some broker would take a cut rather than some bloated bureaucracy taking a cut.

And most economists will say that tariffs are counterproductive.

Not to mention that the WTO would class them as export subsidies no matter what pretty name you put to them.
Thanks from coke
RNG is offline  
Old July 4th, 2016, 11:06 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 383
RNG, although you contend they do not materially differ and Import Certificates and tariffs do share some essential attributes, they differ regarding other attributes that are essential to their purposes. We may disagree as to the extent of their essential and effective differences.
Refer to the thread 5118-compare-tariffs-import-certificates

Within this thread I have mentioned, (possibly often mentioned?) Import Certificates as being an indirect but effective subsidy of their nation’s exported goods.
That’s among the essential attributes that enable the certificate policy to be effectively superior to tariffs and all other proposed or existing national policies for global trade.

Import Certificates are a proposed unilateral policy. The USA has no trade treaties but we do have trade agreements that do not have the federal legal status the U.S. Constitution grants to treaties.
Every international trade agreement the USA is a party to has a procedure for negotiating modifications of the agreement. They also grant all participating parties the right to give six months notice of their intention to resign from further participation within the treaty.
WTO’s opinions are of interest but their approval is not necessary for this proposed change of USA’s global trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from coke

Last edited by Supposn; July 4th, 2016 at 11:16 PM.
Supposn is offline  
Old July 5th, 2016, 07:19 AM   #70
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, although you contend they do not materially differ and Import Certificates and tariffs do share some essential attributes, they differ regarding other attributes that are essential to their purposes. We may disagree as to the extent of their essential and effective differences.
Refer to the thread 5118-compare-tariffs-import-certificates

Within this thread I have mentioned, (possibly often mentioned?) Import Certificates as being an indirect but effective subsidy of their nation’s exported goods.
That’s among the essential attributes that enable the certificate policy to be effectively superior to tariffs and all other proposed or existing national policies for global trade.

Import Certificates are a proposed unilateral policy. The USA has no trade treaties but we do have trade agreements that do not have the federal legal status the U.S. Constitution grants to treaties.
Every international trade agreement the USA is a party to has a procedure for negotiating modifications of the agreement. They also grant all participating parties the right to give six months notice of their intention to resign from further participation within the treaty.
WTO’s opinions are of interest but their approval is not necessary for this proposed change of USA’s global trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn
All those things are true but don't change what I have been saying and don't demonstrate that they will result in a benefit to the people, IMO.
RNG 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.