|
Post by supposn on Feb 16, 2010 12:29:15 GMT -6
Trade deficits are detrimental to the nation’s gross domestic profit, (GDP) and thus to the median wage. I’m a proponent of Warren Buffett’s trade concept to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods. A 2006 U.S. Senate bill based upon his concept never reached the floor for a vote. The proposal is not “pure” free trade but it’s absolutely pure free enterprise. The basic concept is for exporters to be issued transferable IMPORT Certificates for the assessed value of their goods leaving the USA. Importers would be required to surrender IMPORT Certificates for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered certificates are cancelled. Properly drafted, such a bill would not increase government expense, taxes, or debt. The bill would make it impossible for the adjusted assessed values of goods imported into the USA to exceed our assessed exports of goods. If we consider importing and exporting as a single U.S. global trade industry, no USA industry would be harmed by such a bill. The bill would be advantageous to any USA producer of goods that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond our borders. USA consumers could still purchase cheap foreign goods but not at the absolutely cheapest possible price. USA families purchase imported goods but they depend upon their wages to support themselves every day of every year. The cheapest price is no bargain to our nation. Refer to www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by agito on Feb 16, 2010 12:40:27 GMT -6
there was a long thread dedicated to just this idea about a year ago... can't find it though.
welcome to the forum
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 16, 2010 15:41:27 GMT -6
What about just good old fashion tariffs which also generate revenue for the government, so your income isn't taxed so much.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Feb 16, 2010 16:54:02 GMT -6
tariffs can be manipulated and abused by politicians at the citizens peril (i.e. lobbyists will get their way). A market system like this would be more instantaneously reactive to changes between the global economy and the local one.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 17, 2010 10:33:17 GMT -6
What about just good old fashion tariffs which also generate revenue for the government, so your income isn't taxed so much. Fredorbob & Agito, concerning the proposal based upon Warren Buffett’s trade concept: Goods exported from the USA are assessed and ICs are issued only to exporters who choose to pay the federal fees that cover the government’s expenses due to this trade policy. All importers must surrender ICs for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered ICs are canceled. The market rather than government driven trade proposal grants government no policy discretion. It’s (of course) indiscriminate between foreign nations. The open market determines the prices of USA’s global trade, what goods are exported from or imported to the USA, their quantities, and when they are shipped. Supplies of ICs are positively related to USA’s volumes of exported goods. USA purchasers’ additional costs for imported goods are positively related to the market prices of ICs. Exporters of USA goods additional revenue derived from acquired ICs enables their exported goods to be offered to foreign purchasers at discounted prices. The amounts of those discounts are positively related to the market price of ICs. Unlike tariffs, this proposal subsidizes USA exports of goods. If assessments are not adjusted to exclude the value of specified precious minerals integral to the goods, the purpose of this trade policy will be evaded. If specified scarce minerals such as petroleum are not similarly excluded, this policy will be politically and possibly economically unpalatable. Refer to ww.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 19, 2010 0:38:14 GMT -6
I’m impressed with the concept introduced by a concept introduced by Unawflcombatnt within his topic entitled “Trade deficit: Inflation vs $ Devaluation”. The conventionally accepted expectation for USD’s periods of inflation is our trade deficit will decrease. Unawflcombatnt explained why the reverse has been occurring.
During historically more recent periods of USD inflation there was excessively increased commercial and consumer credit made available. Many loans were granted to less credit worthy borrowers and/or for less adequate collateral. (Recall ex-Fed chairman Greenspan’s phrase “unjustifiable optimism”).
During these periods of USD’s inflation our consumers’ perception of their own wealth increased their purchasing rate of all, (i.e. both imported and domestic) goods. USA’s rate of consumption exceeded our dollar’s rate of inflation. The rate of USA exports did increase but never faster and often much slower than USD’s rate of inflation. In the case of China that pegs their currency exchange rate to USD, their rates of imports increases are extremely little or non existent.
During these periods of USD’s inflation USA’s rates of importing goods did not keep abreast with USD’s inflation rate. In these periods (contrary to conventional expectations), USA’s trade deficit proportion relative to our GDP did not decrease and often increased. In such cases USA’s trade deficit has been additionally more detrimental to USA’s GDP.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 20, 2010 17:29:42 GMT -6
I’m impressed with the concept introduced by a concept introduced by Unawflcombatnt within his topic entitled “Trade deficit: Inflation vs $ Devaluation”. The conventionally accepted expectation for USD’s periods of inflation is our trade deficit will decrease. Unawflcombatnt explained why the reverse has been occurring. Supposn, I'm glad to see someone got something out of my long-winded explanation(s) of why the decreasing value of the dollar did not have the predicted decreasing effect on the trade deficit. Simply put, it's the export price that has the most immediate effect on trade balance, not the value of the dollar itself. The value of the dollar does affect export prices, but it's not the whole story. An American consumer price increase increases the price of exports too, even without any change in the value of the dollar. If domestic demand for an American-produced product increases, it increases the price both here and abroad. Even if the dollar-Euro exchange rate stays exactly the same, the price in European export markets STILL increases with American price increases. A decline in the value of the dollar offsets such American price increases--sometimes eliminating the inflationary effect on export prices completely. Usually the export price change and dollar value go in offsetting directions. For example, if the American consumer price of a good increases 20%, and dollar-value declines 10% in Euros, the export price of the American good will increase only 10%. In this case the European export market price increase is occurring despite the dollar declining in value (the latter of which allows a fixed amount of Euros to purchase an increased amount of American goods.) It's the ultimate export price that counts, not the value of the dollar. Devaluation of the dollar does lower export prices in and of itself. But that can be more than offset by a still larger increase in the American Consumer Price.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 21, 2010 7:16:17 GMT -6
tariffs can be manipulated and abused by politicians at the citizens peril (i.e. lobbyists will get their way). A market system like this would be more instantaneously reactive to changes between the global economy and the local one. Anything can be "manipulated and abused by politicians". And Warren Buffet is a money changer, not an industrialist. And buzz-words/buzz-phrases neocons use like "Market Based" no longer works on me. I can use that in any context, "Hey let's adopt a 'Market Based' Communist system." Hey lets move to the " People's Republic of China." creepy. This is sooo 1984.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 21, 2010 17:35:07 GMT -6
Also, tariffs are in the Constitution, schemes by Warren Buffet are not.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 23, 2010 8:27:25 GMT -6
100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers - is a great way to restore America.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 23, 2010 9:46:06 GMT -6
100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers - is a great way to restore America. ...which generates zero revenue for the government, so income/business taxes remain high.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 23, 2010 18:29:55 GMT -6
Putting a million people to work inspecting imports would make lots of indirect tax revenue for fed, state and local govts. It would employ workers of all skills and pay levels, and would also encourage the return of manufacturing.
GB
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Feb 23, 2010 23:21:59 GMT -6
If say the inspection workers were paid as well as Boeing final assembly workers you'd probably generate 2-3 service jobs for every import inspector.
Both of which are also a big plus to state and local governments.
And hopefully it will encourage local manufacturing by small business. Forget about big high tech companies like Dell, HP, GE or Cisco ever coming back as their corporate culture is totally centered around off-shoring and globalization. They'd rather die than go back.
Boeing might come back, but it is a company that is supplying a shrinking industry that is one oil embargo or terrorist strike away from being a mode of transport for the rich only.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 1, 2010 7:28:42 GMT -6
Putting a million people to work inspecting imports would make lots of indirect tax revenue for fed, state and local govts. It would employ workers of all skills and pay levels, and would also encourage the return of manufacturing. GB Taxing government workers generates less than zero revenue for the government. "Hi i'm the Government, i'm going to hire you to do inspect phone cables, here's $1,000 I taxed from someone else. Now give me back $200." That's a net loss of $800 for the government, or $800 taxed from the private sector. Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 1, 2010 10:07:20 GMT -6
"here's $1,000 I taxed from someone else." That someone else is the importer, not the taxpayer. Tariffs don't create any jobs immediately, nor do they create jobs that wouldn't be created by expensive inspections. Tariffs don't protect us from poisoned or dangerous products. The Communist Chinese have no motivation to protect us, so we need to protect ourselves.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 4, 2010 18:16:19 GMT -6
Tariffs do protect from poisonous and the dangerous cause typically with high tariffs only luxury goods are imported; the rich can take care of themselves. Hiring a bajillion people to "inspect" everything coming in is a waste of money, unproductive, and Soviet.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 16, 2010 18:43:14 GMT -6
Also, tariffs are in the Constitution, schemes by Warren Buffet are not. FredOrBob, slavery wasn’t explicitly “in the constitution”; it was compatible with the constitution. USA’s Constitution is continuously modified to (what we hope) improves our nation. It would be more economically beneficial to indirectly (with no government intervention or control), utilize the addition to prices of foreign goods to increase USA exports rather than as an additional revenue raising tax upon USA purchasers of foreign goods. Once the law requiring importers to surrender Import Certificates for the value of their goods is passed, it is this lack of other federal mandates or other intervention that's a major advantage of Buffett’s concept. The market not the government determines the prices of foreign goods within the USA. Global trade itself is beneficial; it is the trade deficit that is detrimental to our economy. Buffett’s concept would induce increased aggregate sum of USA’s imports plus exports. Under Buffett’s policy (unlike tariffs), with no federal activity, any foreign nation’s move to be contrary to the USA’s trade would inflict almost immediate and greater harm upon that nation. [Buffett’s policy would not prevent our exercising any existing or future federal regulations congress may deem necessary to economically defend ourselves. At present for various motives within our federal departments and commercial factions, that is not or usual practice]. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 16, 2010 20:06:31 GMT -6
Tariffs do protect from poisonous and the dangerous cause typically with high tariffs only luxury goods are imported; the rich can take care of themselves. Hiring a bajillion people to "inspect" everything coming in is a waste of money, unproductive, and Soviet. FredOrBob, did you read the referred site www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com ? The proposal’s self-funding. Import Certificates would only be issued to Importers that CHOOSE to pay the federal assessment fee. The assessment fees cover ALL of the expenses attributable to the proposal. Those fees should certainly be set to cover the expenses for assessment of both import and exported goods, issuing of certificates and administration of this proposed trade act. [I’m opposed to all monitoring of our entry ports or the enforcement of our counterfeiting laws being considered as attributable to this trade proposal. Home Land Security is required now to be aware of everything and everyone entering the USA. The U.S. Treasury Department is now charged with seeking all counterfeiters of federal financial instruments]. To whatever extent that the assessment fees contribute to their efforts would be a positive benefit to our nation. More importantly, the physical security of the United States doesn’t seem to be adequate motivation for Home Land Security. This law would benefit any USA industry that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond our borders. All of the lobbyists representing those USA industries would have a strong vested interest to induce U.S. Homeland Security to do its job. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 16, 2010 20:32:10 GMT -6
Hiring a bajillion people to "inspect" everything coming in is a waste of money, unproductive, and Soviet.
Actually its a good deal for the states and local communities where it occurs if their wages are derived from the import duties. And its certainly better than say building casinos like the Southern states are doing or high cost solar plants that employ very few workers and destructive as hell to water resources here in the West. And definitely better than putting to people to work in worthless DoD projects. The later I can attest embodies fraud, waste and abuse like nothing else.
The thing is, most industries are not coming back. The big boys who have built their latest and greatest factories in China are there to stay. For all intents they are now Chinese companies with a relative handful of American executives and employees providing a American face.
What we have to do is basically rebuild our industrial sector from the ground and about the only to get that going is to start making Chinese goods cost a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 16, 2010 23:09:45 GMT -6
Inspection of imports - paid by the importers - is really the last stage of manufacturing, so it repatriates at least that many manufacturing jobs. Since it would be administered by the US govt, inspection inefficiencies would be reflected in the manufacturing cost of foreign goods. Right now we inspect less than 3% of imports. The lives we save could be in the thousands or more.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 17, 2010 8:56:41 GMT -6
Inspection of imports - paid by the importers - is really the last stage of manufacturing, so it repatriates at least that many manufacturing jobs. Since it would be administered by the US govt, inspection inefficiencies would be reflected in the manufacturing cost of foreign goods. Right now we inspect less than 3% of imports. The lives we save could be in the thousands or more. GB Unproductive labor that benefits nobody
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 17, 2010 9:00:51 GMT -6
Also, tariffs are in the Constitution, schemes by Warren Buffet are not. FredOrBob, slavery wasn’t explicitly “in the constitution”; it was compatible with the constitution. USA’s Constitution is continuously modified to (what we hope) improves our nation. It would be more economically beneficial to indirectly (with no government intervention or control), utilize the addition to prices of foreign goods to increase USA exports rather than as an additional revenue raising tax upon USA purchasers of foreign goods. Once the law requiring importers to surrender Import Certificates for the value of their goods is passed, it is this lack of other federal mandates or other intervention that's a major advantage of Buffett’s concept. The market not the government determines the prices of foreign goods within the USA. Global trade itself is beneficial; it is the trade deficit that is detrimental to our economy. Buffett’s concept would induce increased aggregate sum of USA’s imports plus exports. Under Buffett’s policy (unlike tariffs), with no federal activity, any foreign nation’s move to be contrary to the USA’s trade would inflict almost immediate and greater harm upon that nation. [Buffett’s policy would not prevent our exercising any existing or future federal regulations congress may deem necessary to economically defend ourselves. At present for various motives within our federal departments and commercial factions, that is not or usual practice]. Respectfully, Supposn Wow you sound like a free trader when you say tariffs are just a tax on the consumer and of no benefit. And the tariff is in the Constitution, not Warren Buffet schemes.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 17, 2010 9:03:40 GMT -6
Those non-circled countries are poor because they are communist and/or corrupt. High tariffs for them, to isolate the US from their communism and corruption. The US should strive for low tariffs for the circled countries unless they protect their markets like Japan or Korea, or if they attempt to profit off of the tariff disparity by re-exporting goods manufactured (or partially manufactured) in the non-circled countries. The solution is quite simple, and it's Constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 17, 2010 21:26:10 GMT -6
Inspection of imports - paid by the importers - is really the last stage of manufacturing, so it repatriates at least that many manufacturing jobs. Since it would be administered by the US govt, inspection inefficiencies would be reflected in the manufacturing cost of foreign goods. Right now we inspect less than 3% of imports. The lives we save could be in the thousands or more.
GB Fredorbob: "unproductive labor that benefits nobody"
You've obviously never had a pet or friend poisoned by crap from Communist China. Melamine in pet food, ethylene glycol in toothpaste, and poisoned Heparin all should have been stopped by incoming inspection. The bastards have even poisoned baby formula for their domestic consumption. Then there are the defective tires, etc. They are just as happy to see a lot of us die.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 18, 2010 20:27:22 GMT -6
You've obviously never had a pet or friend poisoned by crap from Communist China. Melamine in pet food, ethylene glycol in toothpaste, and poisoned Heparin all should have been stopped by incoming inspection. The bastards have even poisoned baby formula for their domestic consumption. Then there are the defective tires, etc. They are just as happy to see a lot of us die. GB Have you?
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 18, 2010 21:28:23 GMT -6
My wife came within a few days of being exposed to poisoned heparin when the story broke.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 18, 2010 22:55:20 GMT -6
Have a brother on dialysis and I was sweating blood when the story broke about the tainted Heparin from China. Because if it is injected into Dialysis patient its a death sentence.
As it was, it killed 81 people and sickened hundreds more just in the U.S.
This alone is reason enough to have inspections.
And as well as slapping a RICO suit against Baxter Pharmaceutical who used Chinese plants to provide raw material and had zero on-site inspectors to performed tests. Even at their plant in NJ where the Heparin was processed they had little in the way of inspections.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 19, 2010 12:26:25 GMT -6
Then obviously there are inspections cause it was caught.
If there were tariffs on China then there would be no "heparin", so no need for inspection for something that doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 21, 2010 9:59:53 GMT -6
The inspectors were the morticians who performed the autopsies.
When the Heparin story broke on this Forum, I asked my neighbor ICU nurse about it. She hadn't heard it yet, and commented they had seen more people with recovery problems lately. It was far more widespread than reported, as it's difficult to track who died or got sick of what.
Tariffs do not prohibit imports, nor do they assure a better product reaches the consumer.
GB
|
|