Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > U.S. Federal Policy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 31st, 2011, 09:29 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 294
Transferable Import Certificates Vs a Tariff policy



I’m a proponent of a trade policy based upon transferable Import Certificates, (ICs). (Refer to the discussion tread "Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage").



IC policy proposal is often compared to tariff policies. Both policies would increase the prices paid by USA purchasers of imported goods. Both policies would not increase federal net spending or debt. IC policies would absolutely eliminate USA’s aggregate trade deficit of goods’ assessed values. Tariffs purpose is dependent upon the tariff rates that are enacted.







The IC policy would absolutely eliminate the trade deficit REGARDLESS of imports’ additional prices’ to US purchasers; (i.e. even if prices for aggregate imported goods increased by only a penny per item, USA’s trade deficit of those aggregate goods would be eliminated).



Opponents of ICs point out that it’s a market driven policy and government would not cap prices upon the global IC market.



Eliminating the trade deficit of aggregate goods subject to a tariff policy could be assured only if those tariff rates were set at the maximum rate that ICs would ever reach.



Tariffs would be an additional source of federal revenue. IC’s are an additional revenue source for exporters of U.S. goods and would be an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports.







Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 31st, 2011, 09:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 294
Some would prefer tariffs to a transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) because rather than lesser additional cost to USA purchasers of imported goods, they want the highest tariff rates that (they’re certain) will make us to the greatest extent more self sufficient. They’d prefer an almost certain trade surplus to certainly eliminating the trade deficit upon the aggregate of all goods’ assessed values.



The IC proposal would not hinder a trade surplus from developing but under this proposal it’s not likely to occur very often within my and possibly the majority of my childrens' remaining life times.



On the other hand I believe that the price of the extremely high tariffs’ induced trade surplus would be a lesser (than an IC’s policies) sum of USA’s aggregate imports plus exports. I can’t argue from certainty but I strongly suspect that an IC rather than a tariff policy would greater increase our GDP.



The IC proposal is a market rather than a government driven trade policy. If a trade surplus occurs under an IC policy it would be market induced surplus. I know that trade deficits are detrimental to the GDP. I don’t know that a trade surplus due to government’s determined price increased prices to USA’s purchasers of imports would increase our GDP more (than IC’s balanced trade). I suspect that IC would better serve us.







Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old April 1st, 2011, 07:26 AM   #3
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
All of the economic power houses use some sort of tariff based system, this I haven't heard of before but at least someone is talking about the issues. You might know more than me about this but, are there any countries right know that's implemented the IC system? And are there' any politicians right now that's advocating for it (besides billionaires).



Thank you very much, Fayt
Fayt is offline  
Old April 1st, 2011, 07:55 AM   #4
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,748
I think nations whose goods are subject to ICs will either do the same or impose tariffs on US goods. And that will reduce our ability to export, which will affect Americans' pocketbooks.



If you disagree, explain why please.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 1st, 2011, 08:18 AM   #5
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
I think nations whose goods are subject to ICs will either do the same or impose tariffs on US goods. And that will reduce our ability to export, which will affect Americans' pocketbooks.



If you disagree, explain why please.


The countries that're benefiting the most form the U.S. doing away of our protectionist trade barriers starting in the 1980s, doing away with tariffs, doing away with foreign content laws, doing away with American purchasing laws for U.S. contractors in the defense department are China, Japan, Twain, South Korea, principally and European countries. These are countries that are aggressively protectionist. They have no NO intention in participating in "free trade" and it's there for the world to see.
Fayt is offline  
Old April 1st, 2011, 02:04 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 294
Fayt, no nation has ever attempted to do this. Two Democratic Senators proposed it in 2006. It was rejected by the Republican led committee.



I’m suspicious and pessimistic by nature; (that’s generally the case among technicians rather than sales persons). My profession was computer programming and system analysis. I often stated that a proposal “seems logical and it should work; I wonder why it won’t work”. My task was to find the potential bugs and the remedy them before I wrote the system specs and had the programs written. If the team couldn’t remedy the bugs, we discarded the proposal.



We did not fail to anticipate critical problems and thus we were not in the position of encountering serious bugs within an enacted system that we couldn’t handle.



I’ve devoted time and effort to detecting potential bugs within this proposal. Most of the conclusions I’ve reached are described in this discussion thread’s first two messages. Those messages explain the reasons for my extreme confidence in the superiority of this transferable Import Certificate proposal over all other global trade concepts I’ve encountered.



Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old April 1st, 2011, 06:54 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
I think nations whose goods are subject to ICs will either do the same or impose tariffs on US goods. And that will reduce our ability to export, which will affect Americans' pocketbooks.



If you disagree, explain why please.


ImagineThat, I suppose your concern is what would be the international ramifications of USA adopting a transferable Import Certificate, (IC) policy and the net effect upon the USA’s economy.







USA has been suffering from increasing trade deficits for over a half century and we have had the greatest amounts of annual trade deficits. The policy’s benefits are due to its absolute ability to eliminate the entire aggregate assessed values of goods that may be subject to such assessments. It is also an indirect export subsidy of such goods.







The extent of the policy’s benefit is the difference of the nation’s GDP due to adopting or failing to adopting theIC policy. I do not deny the initial immediate international reaction will be unfortunate for almost everyone.



[Refer to message #10 of the discussion “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage”].







Normally most changes are resisted. Change is often severely resisted by those who do not recognize their own benefits due to the proposed change.







If USA adopted an IC policy it would be of advantage to any producer or exporter of USA products that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA’s borders.







Producers and importers of foreign goods would generally pass their IC costs onto USA purchasers of imported goods but their sales will be reduced due to the price increases. USA goods exporters’ additional revenues due to ICs will enable them to reduce their prices of USA goods to foreign purchasers and the global competitive markets will press them to do so. This will increase sales of USA goods within foreign markets and that will further reduce sales of foreign produced goods.







It’s to be expected that foreign nations will enact or increase their tariffs. Some nations that suffer trade deficits may follow our example and enact their own IC trade policy. Providing a foreign nation does not discriminate and penalizes USA goods to a greater extent than goods they import from any other nations, the USA would have no justifiable complaint. Otherwise the U.S. should no longer “turn the other cheek”. [I’ll write an additional message further discussing foreign nation’s current treatment of USA goods and our attempts to sell USA goods in foreign markets].







I suppose that if all nations treated import products in a manner of their own choosing, providing they did not discriminate between nations whose goods are being imported into their nations, the world would be better for it. I’m confident that under such circumstances if the USA adopted an IC trade policy, we would be better for it.







Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 01:13 AM   #8
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Fayt, no nation has ever attempted to do this. Two Democratic Senators proposed it in 2006. It was rejected by the Republican led committee.



I’m suspicious and pessimistic by nature; (that’s generally the case among technicians rather than sales persons). My profession was computer programming and system analysis. I often stated that a proposal “seems logical and it should work; I wonder why it won’t work”. My task was to find the potential bugs and the remedy them before I wrote the system specs and had the programs written. If the team couldn’t remedy the bugs, we discarded the proposal.



We did not fail to anticipate critical problems and thus we were not in the position of encountering serious bugs within an enacted system that we couldn’t handle.



I’ve devoted time and effort to detecting potential bugs within this proposal. Most of the conclusions I’ve reached are described in this discussion thread’s first two messages. Those messages explain the reasons for my extreme confidence in the superiority of this transferable Import Certificate proposal over all other global trade concepts I’ve encountered.



Respectfully, Supposn


That's good Suppsn, but are there anyone talking about the idea of IC today? I can't seem to find a politicians who's avocating for the idea. You also said somthing about the free enterprise, are you a believer in "free markets". IC are interesting, I've just never heard about it until now.
Fayt is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 04:29 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 294
Fayt, apparently extremely few people are discussing or are even aware of this concept.



I rarely encounter any mention of it and sometimes suspect that some of those mentions might have been originally due in part to my own spreading the word efforts. My behaving as a “Johnny Appleseed” could be viewed by some as due to my own conceit.








Regardless of published photos from the viewpoints of rockets and satellites which clearly indicate the curvature of the earth’s horizon, there are still those who reject the notion that the earth’s a globe. If numbers of people are aware of a concept but they predominately don’t accept its premises, that’s more reason to question the concept’s validity. I do not accept the lack of public awareness as an indication of fault within the concept itself.







Import Certificates are not a rejected concept, it’s an almost unknown concept. I believe it’s a concept worthy of consideration.







Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 07:11 AM   #10
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,748
I agree it's an idea worth considering, as it seems reasonable. Warren Buffet has spoken favorably about ICs. The trade deficit is unsustainable, iow, it will break our nation with sufficient time. So will budget deficits, but that's another topic for another thread.



I mean, look at it:









Another interesting graphic showing cumulative trade account balances:









With the exceptions of Japan, China, and some western European countries, every country with a positive balance is an oil exporter. The elephant in the room: China's currency is and has been undervalued, making it's exports cheap. China's problem is that its internal market is growing and how China handles that will remain to be seen.



All that aside for a moment, maintaining America's standard of living, or of consumption, appears unsustainable in the long run. Frankly, it's already unsustainable and has continued only because of massive borrowing. Can we manufacture and export our way out of this conundrum? Perhaps. We also need to replace our oil imports somehow. Simple conservation would be the fastest, most immediate way to reduce oil imports, but conservation isn't popular, and our senses are skewed regarding our use of energy anyway. It's an oft-noted fact: the US, five percent of the world's population, does consume 25 percent of the world's output of oil.



Two more factors to consider: The US doesn't produce many everyday items so we've no choice but to import these items. And, under any balancing scheme, the cost of these everyday items will increase with ICs. If US exports increase, overall US citizens may have more money in their pockets, yet, we'll need more money in our pockets until US companies are created to manufacture many everyday items now imported. And even then, the overall cost of everyday items will be higher than presently.



And another factor: The world economy isn't ruled by supply and demand, The price of most essential commodities, and even orange juice and cocoa, is set by commodities traders who also create derivative investment vehicles. Oddly, terribly?, investors in these vehicles benefit from rising commodity prices. As anyone knows who has traded commodities, the big traders do lure in investors counting on rising commodity prices, and then they tank the markets ... being sure themselves to go from hold to put positions before the tanking begins.



It's freakin' criminal, but the reality of it is documented.



The economy is one hell of a twisted, convoluted, and interwoven network. The odds of correcting its deficiencies are reduced significantly by the commodities trade. Sometimes it seems to me that the only solution is to hit the reset button.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 10:57 AM   #11
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
I agree it's an idea worth considering, as it seems reasonable. Warren Buffet has spoken favorably about ICs. The trade deficit is unsustainable, iow, it will break our nation with sufficient time. So will budget deficits, but that's another topic for another thread.



I mean, look at it:









Another interesting graphic showing cumulative trade account balances:









With the exceptions of Japan, China, and some western European countries, every country with a positive balance is an oil exporter. The elephant in the room: China's currency is and has been undervalued, making it's exports cheap. China's problem is that its internal market is growing and how China handles that will remain to be seen.



All that aside for a moment, maintaining America's standard of living, or of consumption, appears unsustainable in the long run. Frankly, it's already unsustainable and has continued only because of massive borrowing. Can we manufacture and export our way out of this conundrum? Perhaps. We also need to replace our oil imports somehow. Simple conservation would be the fastest, most immediate way to reduce oil imports, but conservation isn't popular, and our senses are skewed regarding our use of energy anyway. It's an oft-noted fact: the US, five percent of the world's population, does consume 25 percent of the world's output of oil.



Two more factors to consider: The US doesn't produce many everyday items so we've no choice but to import these items. And, under any balancing scheme, the cost of these everyday items will increase with ICs. If US exports increase, overall US citizens may have more money in their pockets, yet, we'll need more money in our pockets until US companies are created to manufacture many everyday items now imported. And even then, the overall cost of everyday items will be higher than presently.



And another factor: The world economy isn't ruled by supply and demand, The price of most essential commodities, and even orange juice and cocoa, is set by commodities traders who also create derivative investment vehicles. Oddly, terribly?, investors in these vehicles benefit from rising commodity prices. As anyone knows who has traded commodities, the big traders do lure in investors counting on rising commodity prices, and then they tank the markets ... being sure themselves to go from hold to put positions before the tanking begins.



It's freakin' criminal, but the reality of it is documented.



The economy is one hell of a twisted, convoluted, and interwoven network. The odds of correcting its deficiencies are reduced significantly by the commodities trade. Sometimes it seems to me that the only solution is to hit the reset button.


That's pretty good imaginethat, It's about time we got protectionist and become fuel independent. And most Americans agree.
Fayt is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 11:16 AM   #12
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Fayt, apparently extremely few people are discussing or are even aware of this concept.



I rarely encounter any mention of it and sometimes suspect that some of those mentions might have been originally due in part to my own spreading the word efforts. My behaving as a “Johnny Appleseed” could be viewed by some as due to my own conceit.








Regardless of published photos from the viewpoints of rockets and satellites which clearly indicate the curvature of the earth’s horizon, there are still those who reject the notion that the earth’s a globe. If numbers of people are aware of a concept but they predominately don’t accept its premises, that’s more reason to question the concept’s validity. I do not accept the lack of public awareness as an indication of fault within the concept itself.







Import Certificates are not a rejected concept, it’s an almost unknown concept. I believe it’s a concept worthy of consideration.Respectfully, Supposn


That's unfortunate Supposn that the idea of IC is almost unknown to both parties and not being talked about. Have you ever thought about advocating for a trade policy thats much more likely to be implemented? I don't really see anything wrong with your idea but would you be more effective pushing for something that democrats and even some conservatives are already talking about? I think the conservative Donald Trump is advocating for tariffs policy. Don't you feel a little hopeless being for what I can see really the only one talking about the idea? Please don't get me wrong it's a hell of an idea, I just feel sorry that no one else is really spreading the idea.
Fayt is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 11:42 AM   #13
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,748
The more I study and read about ICs, the more I like the idea. One of its sterling features is that no specific imported product is targeted. Warren Buffett wrote this:



Quote:
We were taught in Economics 101 that countries could not for long sustain large, ever-growing trade deficits. At a point, so it was claimed, the spree of the consumption-happy nation would be braked by currency-rate adjustments and by the unwillingness of creditor countries to accept an endless flow of IOUs from the big spenders. And that's the way it has indeed worked for the rest of the world, as we can see by the abrupt shutoffs of credit that many profligate nations have suffered in recent decades.The U.S., however, enjoys special status. In effect, we can behave today as we wish because our past financial behavior was so exemplary -- and because we are so rich. Neither our capacity nor our intention to pay is questioned, and we continue to have a mountain of desirable assets to trade for consumables. In other words, our national credit card allows us to charge truly breathtaking amounts. But that card's credit line is not limitless.



The time to halt this trading of assets for consumables is now, and I have a plan to suggest for getting it done. My remedy may sound gimmicky, and in truth it is a tariff called by another name. But this is a tariff that retains most free-market virtues, neither protecting specific industries nor punishing specific countries nor encouraging trade wars. This plan would increase our exports and might well lead to increased overall world trade. And it would balance our books without there being a significant decline in the value of the dollar, which I believe is otherwise almost certain to occur.



We would achieve this balance by issuing what I will call Import Certificates (ICs) to all U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports. Each exporter would, in turn, sell the ICs to parties -- either exporters abroad or importers here -- wanting to get goods into the U.S. To import $1 million of goods, for example, an importer would need ICs that were the byproduct of $1 million of exports. The inevitable result: trade balance.



Because our exports total about $ eighty billion a month, ICs would be issued in huge, equivalent quantities -- that is, eighty billion certificates a month -- and would surely trade in an exceptionally liquid market. Competition would then determine who among those parties wanting to sell to us would buy the certificates and how much they would pay. (I visualize that the certificates would be issued with a short life, possibly of six months, so that speculators would be discouraged from accumulating them.)



For illustrative purposes, let's postulate that each IC would sell for 10 cents -- that is, 10 cents per dollar of exports behind them. Other things being equal, this amount would mean a U.S. producer could realize 10 percent more by selling his goods in the export market than by selling them domestically, with the extra 10 percent coming from his sales of ICs.



In my opinion, many exporters would view this as a reduction in cost, one that would let them cut the prices of their products in international markets. Commodity-type products would particularly encourage this kind of behavior. If aluminum, for example, was selling for 66 cents per pound domestically and ICs were worth 10 percent, domestic aluminum producers could sell for about 60 cents per pound (plus transportation costs) in foreign markets and still earn normal margins. In this scenario, the output of the U.S. would become significantly more competitive and exports would expand. Along the way, the number of jobs would grow.



Foreigners selling to us, of course, would face tougher economics. But that's a problem they're up against no matter what trade "solution" is adopted -- and make no mistake, a solution must come. (As Herb Stein said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.") In one way the IC approach would give countries selling to us great flexibility, since the plan does not penalize any specific industry or product. In the end, the free market would determine what would be sold in the U.S. and who would sell it. The ICs would determine only the aggregate dollar volume of what was sold.



To see what would happen to imports, let's look at a car now entering the U.S. at a cost to the importer of $20,000. Under the new plan and the assumption that ICs sell for 10 percent, the importer's cost would rise to $22,000. If demand for the car was exceptionally strong, the importer might manage to pass all of this on to the American consumer. In the usual case, however, competitive forces would take hold, requiring the foreign manufacturer to absorb some, if not all, of the $2,000 IC cost.



There is no free lunch in the IC plan: It would have certain serious negative consequences for U.S. citizens. Prices of most imported products would increase, and so would the prices of certain competitive products manufactured domestically. The cost of the ICs, either in whole or in part, would therefore typically act as a tax on consumers.



That is a serious drawback. But there would be drawbacks also to the dollar continuing to lose value or to our increasing tariffs on specific products or instituting quotas on them -- courses of action that in my opinion offer a smaller chance of success. Above all, the pain of higher prices on goods imported today dims beside the pain we will eventually suffer if we drift along and trade away ever larger portions of our country's net worth.



I believe that ICs would produce, rather promptly, a U.S. trade equilibrium well above present export levels but below present import levels. The certificates would moderately aid all our industries in world competition, even as the free market determined which of them ultimately met the test of "comparative advantage."



This plan would not be copied by nations that are net exporters, because their ICs would be valueless. Would major exporting countries retaliate in other ways? Would this start another Smoot-Hawley tariff war? Hardly. At the time of Smoot-Hawley we ran an unreasonable trade surplus that we wished to maintain. We now run a damaging deficit that the whole world knows we must correct.



For decades the world has struggled with a shifting maze of punitive tariffs, export subsidies, quotas, dollar-locked currencies, and the like. Many of these import-inhibiting and export-encouraging devices have long been employed by major exporting countries trying to amass ever larger surpluses -- yet significant trade wars have not erupted. Surely one will not be precipitated by a proposal that simply aims at balancing the books of the world's largest trade debtor. Major exporting countries have behaved quite rationally in the past and they will continue to do so -- though, as always, it may be in their interest to attempt to convince us that they will behave otherwise.



The likely outcome of an IC plan is that the exporting nations -- after some initial posturing -- will turn their ingenuity to encouraging imports from us. Take the position of China, which today sells us about $140 billion of goods and services annually while purchasing only $25 billion. Were ICs to exist, one course for China would be simply to fill the gap by buying 115 billion certificates annually. But it could alternatively reduce its need for ICs by cutting its exports to the U.S. or by increasing its purchases from us. This last choice would probably be the most palatable for China, and we should wish it to be so.



If our exports were to increase and the supply of ICs were therefore to be enlarged, their market price would be driven down. Indeed, if our exports expanded sufficiently, ICs would be rendered valueless and the entire plan made moot. Presented with the power to make this happen, important exporting countries might quickly eliminate the mechanisms they now use to inhibit exports from us.



Were we to install an IC plan, we might opt for some transition years in which we deliberately ran a relatively small deficit, a step that would enable the world to adjust as we gradually got where we need to be. Carrying this plan out, our government could either auction "bonus" ICs every month or simply give them, say, to less-developed countries needing to increase their exports. The latter course would deliver a form of foreign aid likely to be particularly effective and appreciated.



I will close by reminding you again that I cried wolf once before. In general, the batting average of doomsayers in the U.S. is terrible. Our country has consistently made fools of those who were skeptical about either our economic potential or our resiliency. Many pessimistic seers simply underestimated the dynamism that has allowed us to overcome problems that once seemed ominous. We still have a truly remarkable country and economy.



But I believe that in the trade deficit we also have a problem that is going to test all of our abilities to find a solution. A gently declining dollar will not provide the answer. True, it would reduce our trade deficit to a degree, but not by enough to halt the outflow of our country's net worth and the resulting growth in our investment-income deficit.





Perhaps there are other solutions that make more sense than mine. However, wishful thinking -- and its usual companion, thumb sucking -- is not among them. From what I now see, action to halt the rapid outflow of our national wealth is called for, and ICs seem the least painful and most certain way to get the job done. Just keep remembering that this is not a small problem: For example, at the rate at which the rest of the world is now making net investments in the U.S., it could annually buy and sock away nearly 4 percent of our publicly traded stocks.


More.





The date of writing was October 26, 2003.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 09:07 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
That's unfortunate Supposn that the idea of IC is almost unknown to both parties and not being talked about. Have you ever thought about advocating for a trade policy thats much more likely to be implemented? I don't really see anything wrong with your idea but would you be more effective pushing for something that democrats and even some conservatives are already talking about? I think the conservative Donald Trump is advocating for tariffs policy. Don't you feel a little hopeless being for what I can see really the only one talking about the idea? Please don't get me wrong it's a hell of an idea, I just feel sorry that no one else is really spreading the idea.


Fayt, we seem to agree that trade policy is among the few issues upon which Democrats and Republicans might pass legislation that would significantly improve our economy.







Unfortunately for too long the U.S. Congress has not been able to agree upon very little that’s significantly beneficial to our nation.







If one faction is spending unwisely, another faction is cutting spending on items that will be an unjustified net detriment to our society and/or be net economically detrimental to our nation. We are not enjoying an era of political harmony.







Arguments for continuing to seek pure free trade don’t seem to be significantly more effective when opposing ICs. The arguments opposing the seeking of pure free trade don’t seem significantly less effective when opposed by a proposal for IC’s rather than for tariffs. Arguing for one of the proposed changes does not seriously disparage the other (proposed change). Arguing for ICs rather than for tariffs does not significantly increase the probable number of years prior to our nation ever abandoning the goal of pure free trade.







If we believe IC proposal’s superior to tariffs, why shouldn’t we advocate it?







Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2011, 10:01 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 294
Imaginethat, there are some differences between the IC proposal I’m a proponent of and the legislation draft submitted to the U.S. Senate in 2006.



Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Certificates

or Google: wikipedia, import certificates .







Additional ICs can be obtained due to any USA goods, (e.g. corn, military aircraft, or home permanents) exported from the USA. The global IC market cannot be “cornered”. IC Expiration dates would be of no national benefit but their reducing the values of IC’s would be economically detrimental. This point's not a “deal breaker” but I disagree with Buffett’s restricting IC’s “shelf life”.







Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2011, 04:04 AM   #16
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Fayt, we seem to agree that trade policy is among the few issues upon which Democrats and Republicans might pass legislation that would significantly improve our economy.







Unfortunately for too long the U.S. Congress has not been able to agree upon very little that’s significantly beneficial to our nation.







If one faction is spending unwisely, another faction is cutting spending on items that will be an unjustified net detriment to our society and/or be net economically detrimental to our nation. We are not enjoying an era of political harmony.







Arguments for continuing to seek pure free trade don’t seem to be significantly more effective when opposing ICs. The arguments opposing the seeking of pure free trade don’t seem significantly less effective when opposed by a proposal for IC’s rather than for tariffs. Arguing for one of the proposed changes does not seriously disparage the other (proposed change). Arguing for ICs rather than for tariffs does not significantly increase the probable number of years prior to our nation ever abandoning the goal of pure free trade.







If we believe IC proposal’s superior to tariffs, why shouldn’t we advocate it?







Respectfully, Supposn


Tariffs has worked in this country for over 200 years, worked before this country was ever thought about and countries that don't have huge trade deficits use some form of a tariff based system. I don't fully disagree with the IC idea, I just find it hard to avocate for something that hasn't ever been implemented before and isn't getting any attention form politicians today. I also reject the idea of the free enterprise or aka, "free markets". Mr. Buffett is one of the few educated billinaires in this country and I wish he would run for president. He can become the next Ralph Nader.
Fayt is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2011, 05:09 AM   #17
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Tariffs has worked in this country for over 200 years, worked before this country was ever thought about and countries that don't have huge trade deficits use some form of a tariff based system. I don't fully disagree with the IC idea, I just find it hard to avocate for something that hasn't ever been implemented before and isn't getting any attention form politicians today. I also reject the idea of the free enterprise or aka, "free markets". Mr. Buffett is one of the few educated billinaires in this country and I wish he would run for president. He can become the next Ralph Nader.


Fayt, you're dangerously close to saying, "Let's just do it the way my grandpappy did it....." Tariffs "worked" in the past and led to trade wars, and probably contributed to a number of hot wars.



You'd vote for a man who says one of the points he likes about ICs is that they will preserve most of the good points of the free market system, and "In the end, the free market would determine what would be sold in the U.S. and who would sell it. The ICs would determine only the aggregate dollar volume of what was sold."



What is it about the free market you don't like?



Now, the fact is we don't have a free market. We have a market distorted by commodities traders and vile government laws and policies. But, I wonder what it is that annoys you so about the concept of a free market. And, in your opinion what dynamic should set market prices?
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2011, 07:38 AM   #18
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Fayt, you're dangerously close to saying, "Let's just do it the way my grandpappy did it....." Tariffs "worked" in the past and led to trade wars, and probably contributed to a number of hot wars.



You'd vote for a man who says one of the points he likes about ICs is that they will preserve most of the good points of the free market system, and "In the end, the free market would determine what would be sold in the U.S. and who would sell it. The ICs would determine only the aggregate dollar volume of what was sold."



What is it about the free market you don't like?



Now, the fact is we don't have a free market. We have a market distorted by commodities traders and vile government laws and policies. But, I wonder what it is that annoys you so about the concept of a free market. And, in your opinion what dynamic should set market prices?


You're right imaginethat. nothing really it just not such thing as a free market that's all. Also can you name a war that was fought due to tariffs? and why?
Fayt is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2011, 07:50 AM   #19
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
You're right imaginethat. nothing really it just not such thing as a free market that's all. Also can you name a war that was fought due to tariffs? and why?


No I can't Fayt. However, actions that raise tensions between nations certainly don't make war less likely. Trade wars owing to tariffs are well documented.



And in your ideal world, what process would determine the cost of goods?
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2011, 08:11 AM   #20
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
No I can't Fayt. However, actions that raise tensions between nations certainly don't make war less likely. Trade wars owing to tariffs are well documented.



And in your ideal world, what process would determine the cost of goods?


You say there war fought over tariff but yet don't post any. How I'm suppose to start taking that argument seriously?
Fayt is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > U.S. Federal Policy

Tags
certificates, import, policy, tariff, transferable


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Romney Forced Gay Parents to Alter Birth Certificates by Hand Dude111 Gay and Lesbian Rights 10 November 6th, 2012 06:42 AM
Signing Export-Import Bank Reauthorization The White House The White House 1 May 31st, 2012 12:44 AM
Birth Certificates to Reflect NY Gay-Marriage Move tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 92 January 2nd, 2009 03:43 PM
Which has the best Iraq policy? tyreay Politicians 0 April 22nd, 2007 06:18 AM
Policy Chick Lincoln New Users 216 March 8th, 2007 03:50 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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