|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 6:03:04 GMT -6
If that were true then an import car would cost $2,000, gas would be 50 cents a gallon, and a pair of jeans would cost $1. FredOrBob, I haven’t the slightest clue as to how you reached this conclusion but I expect you’ll enlighten all of us. Respectfully, Supposn You claim that Tariffs increase cost to consumer goods, and Free Trade decreases cost to consumer goods. Well if that were true then an import car would cost $2,000, gas would be 50 cents a gallon, and a pair of jeans would cost $1.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 6:10:12 GMT -6
... It would accomplish nothing. The politician or bureaucrat in charge would overvalue exports and undervalue imports in ASSESSING (dictating) the value of every product known to mankind. FredOrBob, you’re a proponent of tariffs but reject Import Certificates because you have no confidence in federal assessment of goods? Dictating, not assessing. And you don't recognize that you don't need a government to DICTATE the value of goods. There already exists a value to every good known to mankind, it's what the customer already pays. Why would you need to create a 2nd artificial value for every good known to mankind? So on paper imports can be undervalued and exports can be overvalued so the politician in charge can declare, "See we fixed the trade deficit, congratulations." You guys seem to forget Import Certificates is the brainchild of Free Traders in the Democratic Party. Not you Supposn, you're a Democrat, you think this is all fine and dandy. I've seen you on another forum, with the exact same name, saying the exact same thing, you're a Democrat. Including Carbon Credits. Or you're a Green; nobody on the right propagandizes for the Carbon Credit scam.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 6:25:20 GMT -6
This is how Import Certificates will really work:
Some bureaucrat or politician will dictate the value of crude oil, plastic toys, cars, clothes to be 1 IC
Some bureaucrat or politician will dictate the value of movies, soybeans, corn to be 2 IC
And when an importer imports without an IC they will be fined $10 for every ton.
This will accomplish nothing.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 5, 2011 9:35:18 GMT -6
This is how Import Certificates will really work: Some bureaucrat or politician will dictate the value of crude oil, plastic toys, cars, clothes to be 1 IC Some bureaucrat or politician will dictate the value of movies, soybeans, corn to be 2 IC And when an importer imports without an IC they will be fined $10 for every ton. This will accomplish nothing. FredOrBob, I ask again why do you advocate tariffs? Both tariffs and Import Certificates would require federal assessment of goods. Your positions are illogically contradictory and in my opinion beyond cynical; they’re paranoiac. There’d be no “fine” for inability to surrender Import Certificates of sufficient value to cover assessed imported goods. Imported goods not covered would not be permitted to be unloaded from the cargo carrier. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 15:58:39 GMT -6
And then they will print more IC's cause there will be an "IC Deficit", and they'll just hand out more IC's to importers.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 16:07:27 GMT -6
This is how Import Certificates will really work: Some bureaucrat or politician will dictate the value of crude oil, plastic toys, cars, clothes to be 1 IC Some bureaucrat or politician will dictate the value of movies, soybeans, corn to be 2 IC And when an importer imports without an IC they will be fined $10 for every ton. This will accomplish nothing. FredOrBob, I ask again why do you advocate tariffs? Both tariffs and Import Certificates would require federal assessment of goods. Well at least with Tariffs nobody is pretending to be fixing the problem, the rate of tariff will determine how determined the elected officials are to fix the problem. I'm being cynical am I? With Romney Care (oops I mean Obama Care) how many companies has Obama already given Waivers too? Waivers, aha, haven't thought of that. How many importers will be given Waivers, not be required to have an IC? ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54436 How many times has government pushed back emission standards, like trying to force everyone to drive 10% electric cars by X date? And now we have the Congress borrowing from itself (Federal Reserve), so don't give me any cynical or paranoia crap. This government is teetering on the edge towards Banana Republic with fraud, and you want to introduce a new gigantic complex money system that can easily be hidden under tons of paperwork. Why do you think subprime mortgage-backed securities lasted so long, because it was a complex web of ideas hidden under tons of paperwork. If there is no "Fine" then why would anyone follow the law?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 17:09:19 GMT -6
You're everywhere Supposn, even on this blog: www.economicpopulist.org/content/reduce-trade-deficit-increase-gdp-median-wageSeems like Import Certificates are the be all-end all solution to you. By what magical spell would Import Certificates work without coersion? That's what government is; coersion, by way of fines, dictates, and taxes. You seem to think requiring businesses to shuffle certificates between one place and another will magically increase exports and decrease imports; or maybe you think it will simply magically increase exports to equal imports, cause decreasing imports is a no-no for a Free Trader. The only way it could work is similar to quotas, where an importer finds himself with an IC deficit, which means business for that importer comes to a screeching halt, no more imports. Quotas are is highly inferior to the Tariff. The Tariff generates revenue, the Tariff doesn't discriminate, the Tariff is Constitutional. And an importer finding himself with an IC deficit brings us back to square 1, where that evil word "Assess" pops up time and time again in my brain. The only way the IC could work, without having almost every importer in the country being in a permanent IC deficit is to "assess" the value of exports much higher then the value of imports, basically accomplishing ZIPP.....ADY DO DA DAY!
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 17:27:21 GMT -6
My Glen Beck impersonation. 10 Import Certificate certifications in my little universe. *walks towards chalkboard*
________________________
"Hello look at me, I'm Shell Oil. Government gave me 5 Import Certificates."
"Hello look at me, I'm Cargill Agricultural. Government gave me 5 Import Certificates"
Shell, "Hey I just imported, and I used up all 5 Import Certificates, could I buy 5 from you?"
Cargill, "Sure, it will cost you a billion dollars."
Shell, "Holey Cow! Forget it, we'll just stop importing."
Quota ________________________________
"Hello look at me, I'm Shell Oil. Government gave me 5 Import Certificates."
"Hello look at me, I'm Cargill Agricultural. Government gave me 5 Import Certificates"
Shell, "Hey I just imported, and I used up all 5 Import Certificates, could I buy 5 from you?"
Cargill, "Sure, it will cost you a billion dollars."
Shell, "Holey Cow! Forget it. Yo Government!"
Government, "What?"
Shell, "I'm going to go out of business if you don't print me more Import Certificates. You know how many constituents you will lose?"
Government, "Ok here."
Print Money, or Waiver
________________________________
"Hello look at me, I'm Shell Oil. Government gave me 5 Import Certificates."
"Hello look at me, I'm Cargill Agricultural. Government gave me 5 Import Certificates"
Shell, "Hey I just imported, and I used up all 5 Import Certificates, could I buy 5 from you?"
Cargill, "Sure, it will cost you a million dollars."
Shell, "OK here."
WOW it worked, amazing. No it didn't, there is still the same trade deficit. All you did is give some Cargill CEO a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 5, 2011 19:48:02 GMT -6
FredOrBob, you perceive a difference between the assessment of goods within a tariff or an Import Certificate system?
Why would they necessarily have to differ? How would the values of goods be determined and who would make those decisions within the differing systems?
You still have not explained your position.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 5, 2011 19:49:37 GMT -6
Fredorbob has pointed out an almost guaranteed problem with import certificates: All the exceptions that would no doubt be included. And the more complicated the plan (in contradistinction to something simple like Tariffs), the more opportunity there is to make exceptions or come up with special qualifier and exclusions for chosen industries.
Furthermore, those qualifiers and exclusions would be complicated in themselves, and would make it next to impossible for lay people--and probably even legislators--to understand what those exclusions applied to.
We really need something simple and easily understandable to fix our trade imbalance.
Tariffs are the best thing yet to accomplish that.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 5, 2011 21:37:43 GMT -6
FredOrBob, you perceive a difference between the assessment of goods within a tariff or an Import Certificate system? Why would they necessarily have to differ? How would the values of goods be determined and who would make those decisions within the differing systems? You still have not explained your position. Respectfully, Supposn The value of goods are already determined by how much they cost to the consumer, not a false value invented for a shell game (Import Certificates).
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 5, 2011 22:31:58 GMT -6
I must admit to being highly skeptical of IC, they are complicated and hence easy to manipulate by insiders much the same derivatives are for the investment community or carbon credits in the pollution industry.
A 100% blanket tariff on Chinese goods would be much easier to track and understand.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 6, 2011 2:34:33 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, I’ll repeat the same questions that FredOrBob continues to Evade.
Assessment of goods « Reply #68 Today at 4:48pm » ________________________________________ FredOrBob, you perceive a difference between the assessment of goods within a tariff or an Import Certificate system?
Why would they necessarily have to differ? How would the values of goods be determined and who would make those decisions within the differing systems?
You still have not explained your position.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 6, 2011 4:31:45 GMT -6
FredOrBob, I haven’t the slightest clue as to how you reached this conclusion but I expect you’ll enlighten all of us. Respectfully, Supposn You claim that Tariffs increase cost to consumer goods, and Free Trade decreases cost to consumer goods. Well if that were true then an import car would cost $2,000, gas would be 50 cents a gallon, and a pair of jeans would cost $1. FredorBob, your reply #60 is almost entirely untrue. I have consistently stated that both tariffs and Import Certificates increase imports’ prices to USA purchasers. I suppose that I stated or reflected my belief that sufficiently high tariffs would reduce the trade deficit of goods subject to the tariffs. I did explicitly state that only extremely high tariffs could eliminate USA’s trade deficit of goods. I did explicitly state that regardless of how small of price increases were due to Import Certificates, they would certainly eliminate the trade deficit of goods requiring the certificates to enter the USA. I have never stated that free trade REDUCES the prices of imports to purchasers. Due to ether tariffs or Import Certificates prices of imports would be increased more than otherwise; thus I logically conclude that free traded goods’ prices of imported goods to USA purchasers are lesser than if they were subject to federal tariffs or Import certificates. The addition to prices paid by USA purchasers are the reason that tariffs are able to reduce the trade deficit or Import Certificates are able to subsidize exports to foreign nations and fund (in the cases of both policies), all federal expenses due to the trade policy. That addition to imports' prices is partially the reason that Import Certificates would entirely eliminate the trade deficit of goods requiring certificates to enter the USA. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 6, 2011 6:29:52 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, under either tariffs or transferable Import Certificates systems we prefer not to favor or discriminate between different nations or types of goods. We do not want the federal government to choose winners or losers.
I do not perceive any reason why the assessment methods should differ due to our choosing one or the other system.
Remember in all cases the federal assessments are in U.S. dollars and goods are assessed as to their values at the U.S. ports. It’s greatly preferable that within the IC system the same federal agency make the assessments for imports and exports in the same manner.
In the cases of both tariffs or ICs, if the federal assessing agency consistently under assesses goods, USA purchasers of imported goods will pay lesser additional costs for imported goods, there will be lesser federal tariff revenues or in the cases of ICs USA exports will be lesser subsidized. (Regardless of the assessment amounts, under an IC system USA’s assessed imports will never exceed our assessed exports).
If the federal assessing agency consistently over assesses goods; Under both tariffs or IC systems USA purchasers of imported goods will pay greater additional costs for imported goods and under the IC system, (due to the subsidy) USA's exports of goods would also increase.
Also under a tariff system if the federal assessing agency consistently over estimates values: USA’s trade deficits would further decrease and USA’s tariff revenues would increase;
But under a tariff system if assessments were further over assessed, USA trade deficits would further decrease, (possibly to the extent of being completely eliminated) and USA’s tariff revenues would be reduced similarly to the reduction of the trade deficit.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 6, 2011 22:14:25 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, I’ll repeat the same questions that FredOrBob continues to Evade. Assessment of goods « Reply #68 Today at 4:48pm » ________________________________________ FredOrBob, you perceive a difference between the assessment of goods within a tariff or an Import Certificate system? Why would they necessarily have to differ? How would the values of goods be determined and who would make those decisions within the differing systems? You still have not explained your position. Respectfully, Supposn By default, if government is going to "ASSESS" the value of something, it is going to be a different number then the "REAL" value of something. Take the word "ASSESS" out of the IC proposal. Can't do it can ya!
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 7, 2011 1:19:52 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, I’ll repeat the same questions that FredOrBob continues to Evade. Assessment of goods « Reply #68 Today at 4:48pm » ________________________________________ FredOrBob, you perceive a difference between the assessment of goods within a tariff or an Import Certificate system? Why would they necessarily have to differ? How would the values of goods be determined and who would make those decisions within the differing systems? You still have not explained your position. Respectfully, Supposn FredOrBob, you’re a proponent of tariff system and you’re an opponent of an Import Certificate, (IC) system because you contend that Under ICs goods will not be properly assessed but you’re unable to explain how assessments would differ within the two systems. Your messages continue to be illogical and inexplicable. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 7, 2011 2:18:47 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, under either tariffs or transferable Import Certificates systems we prefer not to favor or discriminate between different nations or types of goods. We do not want the federal government to choose winners or losers. Supposn, Once again, you don't seem to be either reading, and/or comprehending my own responses to your posts. In fact, we most certainly DO want to pick winners and losers, when it comes to nations. We want to ensure that the price of our own domestic goods are not undercut by the price from cheap labor countries like China. In fact, we specifically want to single China out, as a so-called competitor that we cannot compete with on wages. So we specifically want to raise very, VERY high Tariffs on goods from China. In fact, since you've brought this up, this is a HUGE problem with your IC proposal--the inability to target it specifically at countries with tremendously unfair trade advantages (like China with its $1/hour wages). That's only because your whole spiel is a monologue. You're not paying attention to any of the responses to your plan. The assessment methods on Tariffs are via price/value at the point of entry. Period. Though the assessment method for ICs could technically be the same, the import certificates can be bought and sold for a different price than the actual cost of the import. So that adds an additional (and unpredictable) factor into the mix with Import Certificates. That's the "free market" affect you alluded to. So the cost/price of import certificates would not necessarily be the same, or even valued the same way as Tariffs. And again, import certificates leave a tremendous amount of potential "flexibility" for Government meddling--something that is far less of a problem with Tariffs. And again, it is comparatively easy for the American layman to understand how a Tariff works--tax an import to the point that it is no longer price-competitive with the equivalent American-produced product. In comparison, just try to explain how an import certificate works to the general public--especially with the inclusion that the price is "market-driven." Part of your underlying theme is that American producers should be rewarded for exporting. In my view, it is far better to penalize those Americans who import into the US market. Considering that there are NO manufactured goods that Americans can't make for themselves, and almost no non-oil resources we don't already produce ourselves, it seems that the major goal should be to suppress imports into the US. It is the American consumer market we need to retake as our own, not foreign consumer markets which are smaller, and ones we'll never break into in the first place. We should not be subsidizing exports. Period. Not in any way shape or form. We need to heavily penalize imports and importers.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 7, 2011 16:19:15 GMT -6
We should not be subsidizing exports. Period. Not in any way shape or form. We need to heavily penalize imports and importers. I absolutely agree. That's what China does, they subsidize exports, to the cost of their own CITIZENS. Trade, one way or another, shouldn't cost US citizens a damn thing. We can be self sufficient thank you much. Seems like IC's, if working perfectly as intended (never would happen) would be halfway between Tariffs and subsidizing exports.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 7, 2011 16:26:09 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, I’ll repeat the same questions that FredOrBob continues to Evade. Assessment of goods « Reply #68 Today at 4:48pm » ________________________________________ FredOrBob, you perceive a difference between the assessment of goods within a tariff or an Import Certificate system? Why would they necessarily have to differ? How would the values of goods be determined and who would make those decisions within the differing systems? You still have not explained your position. Respectfully, Supposn FredOrBob, you’re a proponent of tariff system and you’re an opponent of an Import Certificate, (IC) system because you contend that Under ICs goods will not be properly assessed but you’re unable to explain how assessments would differ within the two systems. Your messages continue to be illogical and inexplicable. Respectfully, Supposn The difference: IC's subsidize exports at a cost-----Tariffs generate revenue. IC's can be turned into a shell game very easily----With Tariffs there's a single number. A free trader can hide behind piles of paperwork and a web of complex concepts and ideas (IC's) while simultaneously maintaining this massive trade deficit----------A Free Trader will never pass a Tariff, but a free trader will pretend to be fixing the problem with IC's. A Free Trader will never pass a Tariff, let that sink in for a second. That's why I'm only for Tariffs. Because a Free Trader will never pass a Tariff. The Tariff is a sniff test for all politicians running for office, if the politician is against the Tariff, then I am against that politician. A Free Trader can pretend to care about "jobs" just like they are all doing now, and play a shell game such as "IC"s or "Green Jobs", but in the end they are FREE TRADERS! FREE TRADERS CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED! PERIOD, DOT DOT DOT! END OF STORY.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 7, 2011 18:19:46 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt: The assessment methods on Tariffs are via price/value at the point of entry. Period. ---------------------------------------------------------- Why would you believe that the assessment methods for Import certificates would differ from whatever the U.S. congress may determine to be the methods for tariffs? //////////////////////////////////////
Unlawflcombatnt: Though the assessment method for ICs could technically be the same, the import certificates can be bought and sold for a different price than the actual cost of the import. ---------------------------------------------------
If the open market price of an IC is $1,000 per $1,000 of imports, by the price of imported goods to U.S. customers, (assuming there are no specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods) would be in excess of double the import’s price otherwise. Why would you believe that the price of ICs would even approach the price of the imports themselves? ////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unlawflcombatnt: So that adds an additional (and unpredictable) factor into the mix with Import Certificates. That's the "free market" affect you alluded to. ------------------------------------------- Are you contending that the less predictable price of ICs will discourage foreign goods from being imported into the USA? I believe if importing is profitable, there’ll be importing. But you are you changing your position? Didn’t you prefer extremely high tariffs to ICs because you feared that within an IC policy there’d be too much imports entering the USA?
Now you prefer tariffs because ICs’ less than predictable market prices may discourage USA’s importation of goods? ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I don’t know what you meant when you wrote; “So the cost/price of import certificates would not necessarily be the same, or even valued the same way as Tariffs”.
Within an IC system, due to increased market prices of ICs, import prices to USA purchasers and the indirect subsidy of USAs exports would increase. Due to reduced market prices of ICs, import prices to USA purchasers and the indirect subsidy of USAs exports would decrease. Regardless of ICs open market price, the federal fees to exporter’s of USA goods are set and annually adjusted to cover all federal administration and assessment expenses due to this trade policy.
The goods of exporters choosing not to pay the federal assessment fees will not be assessed prior to be shipped from the USA and no ICs will be issued to the exporter. There’s no net federal revenue derived from this IC proposal. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unlawflcombatnt: And again, import certificates leave a tremendous amount of potential "flexibility" for Government meddling--something that is far less of a problem with Tariffs. -------------------------------------------------------------------- If exporters’ of USA goods request their shipment to be assessed and they agree to pay the assessment fees, their goods will be assessed and upon their goods leaving the USA, transferable Import certificates with a “face value” equivalent to the assessed values of their goods will be issued to them. Otherwise their goods leave the USA un-assessed and no certificates are issued.
All Imports are assessed and importers are required to surrender IC’s with face values covering the assessed values of their goods before their goods are permitted to enter the USA. Surrendered ICs are cancelled.
Assessment of goods is a technical rather than a policy determination. The government has no policy discretion in these matters. ////////////////////////////////////////////
Unlawflcombatnt: And again, it is comparatively easy for the American layman to understand how a Tariff works--tax an import to the point that it is no longer price-competitive with the equivalent American-produced product.
In comparison, just try to explain how an import certificate works to the general public--especially with the inclusion that the price is "market-driven." -----------------------------------------------------------------
I’m a proponent of the IC trade concept because it would increase our GDP and median wage to an extent greater than tariffs. I’d accept tariffs if we couldn’t get ICs but why not try for the superior policy.
An advantage of keeping up public discussions of tariffs vs. transferable Import Certificates is that we continue to publicly voice our objections to pure free trade, and trade deficit’s economic harm. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by judes on Mar 7, 2011 19:09:28 GMT -6
IC's sound way too confusing. I need to ask another question, where does the money go when an IC is purchased? Who get's the money in such a transaction? Why wouldn't we want that money to fund our government such as how a tariff works. I have a feeling the money would end up with Wall Street investment banks, why is that?
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 7, 2011 19:38:16 GMT -6
......Part of your underlying theme is that American producers should be rewarded for exporting. In my view, it is far better to penalize those Americans who import into the US market........ .......We should not be subsidizing exports. Period. Not in any way shape or form. We need to heavily penalize imports and importers. Unlawflcombatnt, the exporter of USA goods chose to pay the federal assessment fee. Those fees fund all federal expenses. The taxpayers ain’t paying for the IC system. The federal agency issued the IC to the exporter of USA goods. Exporters of USA goods sell, use, or trade their transferable ICs. They’re not the eventual payers of ICs. Due to competitive pressures, exporters are induced to lower their prices of USA goods to foreign purchasers. (That’s the indirect subsidy of USA exported goods). The Importers of foreign goods must go to the expense of obtaining ICs in order to get their goods into the USA. They’re at no competitive disadvantage to other importers of foreign goods. They all pass their expenses onto their customers. It is the eventual final purchasers of foreign goods who pay the entire expenses of the ICs and the subsidy of USA’s exports. Increased USA exports increase our GDP well in excess of the exported goods themselves the GDP bolsters our median wage. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by judes on Mar 7, 2011 19:48:29 GMT -6
The Importers of foreign goods must go to the expense of obtaining ICs in order to get their goods into the USA. They’re at no competitive disadvantage to other importers of foreign goods. They all pass their expenses onto their customers. ..... Who do they purchase the IC's from, and to where does the money used to purchase them go?
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 7, 2011 20:03:27 GMT -6
Once again, you don't seem to be either reading, and/or comprehending my own responses to your posts. In fact, we most certainly DO want to pick winners and losers, when it comes to nations. We want to ensure that the price of our own domestic goods are not undercut by the price from cheap labor countries like China. In fact, we specifically want to single China out, as a so-called competitor that we cannot compete with on wages. So we specifically want to raise very, VERY high Tariffs on goods from China. In fact, since you've brought this up, this is a HUGE problem with your IC proposal--the inability to target it specifically at countries with tremendously unfair trade advantages (like China with its $1/hour wages). Unlawflcombastnt, I sit corrected because I don’t type while standing. As you pointed out WE do not wish to treat all foreign nations shipping products into the USA in an equitable manner; but I concur with those who (unlike you), propose to do so. Refer to the “Most-favoured-nation” (MFN) clauses within the site of www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm . (Note the spelling of favor. Great Britain and the USA have similar but not the same language). A transferable Import Certificate policy is a unilateral trade policy. USA’s adoption of the policy would require us to exercise our right to offer a 6 months’ notice of intents to resign from such agreements as the World Trade Organization. I do not expect other member nations to tolerate our retaining both our memberships and our new soon to be enacted trade policy but regardless of what they decide we should continue many practices that are to all of our mutual advantages. The USA has laws and regulations prohibiting foreign nation’s “dumping” their products into the USA. Due to pacts’ such as the WTO’s regulations, our acceptance of all of those regulations and decisions by the world court, the USA has been unable to exercise what we believe should be our rights to protect ourselves from other nations' predatory trade practices. If we enact an IC policy we should then fully exercise those rights and where our regulations are now inadequate we should pass additional acts and regulations to firm up our rights. ICs do not grant products an absolute right to be imported into our nation; requiring surrender of ICs to cover the assessed values of product is an ADDITIONAL qualification for USA’s imports. An IC trade policy would absolutely prevent USA’s assessed imports from exceeding the values of our exports. This along with actually exercising our rights to defend ourselves from beeing “dumped” upon would protect us from what is now our global trade deficits’ detriments to our economy. I’m opposed to bureaucrats examining each global trade contract to determine what was actually the price charged for each individual item. That’s what would have to be done if we’re to accept their contracts as valid assessment prices of global traded goods. Trade agreements can be simple written contracts or complex hybrids of written, spoken and mutually accepted agreements. Agreements can also along with tangible products involve loans and credit considerations, franchises, patents, and copyrights. Your additionally suggesting that federal assessments of products should also consider the compensation of each nation’s labor; including laborers rights and access to healthcare, childcare, subsidized commuting, food or housing, and the nations’ currencies’ ”official” or market currency exchange rates? That’s why I’m a proponent of annually updated federal assessment guidelines for the general market values of products at USA ports in U.S. dollars. Most federal regulations allow for interested parties, (which would include commercial competitors) to appeal federal determinations. They also have access to our federal civil courts. If federal determinations are wrong, determinations are rectified and injured parties are compensated. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 7, 2011 21:51:25 GMT -6
The Importers of foreign goods must go to the expense of obtaining ICs in order to get their goods into the USA. They’re at no competitive disadvantage to other importers of foreign goods. They all pass their expenses onto their customers. ..... Who do they purchase the IC's from, and to where does the money used to purchase them go? Judes, it’s much more difficult to corner the market of transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) than the markets of any commodity or any corporation’s stock. Almost anyone in the world with money or credit, can arrange directly or through other entities to export goods from the USA. Our government wouldn’t care who you are or the foreign destination of the goods being shipped. If you agree to pay the assessment expense fees, the federal; government will issue you ICs once your assessed goods have lefty the USA. The market could be cornered if the federal government couldn’t assess exports or exports couldn’t leave the USA. But if exports couldn’t leave would imports still be able to get through? If the government couldn’t assess exports could it still assess imports? If imports couldn’t come into the USA or the government couldn’t assess imports, there’d be no immediate need for ICs. The point of cornering a market is to be able to obtain high prices for what you’re selling thsat’s in short supply. If there’s no immediate need for ICs, buyers .aren’t sufficiently desperate and they won’t pay extraordinary prices for what your selling. Some people can become paranoid about anything but judes, you needn’t concern yourself about some extraordinary scheme to corner an IC market and destroy our economy. Entraprenuers are likely to act as brokers and sell ICs over the internet. I suppose almost anything can be sold over the internet. Importers whon need ICs will find a way to get them. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 8, 2011 1:56:25 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt: The assessment methods on Tariffs are via price/value at the point of entry. Period. ---------------------------------------------------------- Why would you believe that the assessment methods for Import certificates would differ from whatever the U.S. congress may determine to be the methods for tariffs? ////////////////////////////////////// Part of it is that ICs will be sold at the "free market" price. That means that their price will not necessarily be the same as the amount of exports they covered. Which means that a specific dollar amount of imports may cost the importer either more or less--depending on the market price of the ICs. With Tariffs the additional cost is fixed. If you levy a 100% Tariff on $300 billion of imports, the importers will have to pay $300 billion in Tariffs. With import certificates, since it is market-driven, importers may pay a different amount for $300 billion of imports, depending on the market value of the IC's. For example, importers in aggregate may be able to buy $300 billion of import certificates for only $200 billion dollars. Or, on the other side of the coin, they may have to pay $400 billion for ICs to allow $300 billion of imports. So the amount of extra "tax" paid to import a specific $-value of imports may vary with ICs, whereas it would be fixed with Tariffs. Same point again. What keeps an exporter from selling $300 billion of import certificates for only $200 billion, if the price is "market-driven"? What keeps the importer from selling $300 billion of import certificates for $100 billion? You need to get away from the "free-market" and "market-driven" valuation of import certificates. If, instead, you said they had to be sold for exactly the same price as the value of imports they permitted, that would resolve much of the problem. No. Exactly the opposite. I'm contending that imports will still be much easier with ICs, than they would be with Tariffs. No. You're interpreting my position in reverse. I'm against ICs because they will ENCOURAGE imports into the US, compared to simple Tariffs. What I meant is that you're throwing the so-called "market-driven" aspect into the price equation of import certificates, in contrast to Tariffs which are fixed fees and have nothing to do with a "market-driven" price. I'm no sure you meant to word it that way, but the part where you said "Due to reduced market prices of ICs, import prices to USA purchasers...would decrease", is exactly what we DON'T want. In fact, that's exactly where my problem is with ICs. I don't like the fact that they may cost importers less than Tariffs would. The goal is to reduce imports. ICs won't do as good a job at reducing imports as Tariffs will.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 8, 2011 6:56:19 GMT -6
Both IC and tariffs have arbitrary pricing, and IC especially would wreak havoc on the market as every shipment may have a different IC cost than the last one. Unworkable.
Inspections do the job that we can't trust being done by foreign workers and companies. Inspections done here and paid by the importers will at least bring the inspection jobs home. The ensuing delays will make it cheaper to just produce the goods here.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:00:53 GMT -6
Both IC and tariffs have arbitrary pricing, and IC especially would wreak havoc on the market as every shipment may have a different IC cost than the last one. Unworkable. Inspections do the job that we can't trust being done by foreign workers and companies. Inspections done here and paid by the importers will at least bring the inspection jobs home. The ensuing delays will make it cheaper to just produce the goods here. GB Sure, inspections, millions of people could be un-gainfully employed at a massive cost to taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:05:54 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt: The assessment methods on Tariffs are via price/value at the point of entry. Period. ---------------------------------------------------------- Why would you believe that the assessment methods for Import certificates would differ from whatever the U.S. congress may determine to be the methods for tariffs? ////////////////////////////////////// Part of it is that ICs will be sold at the "free market" price. That means that their price will not necessarily be the same as the amount of exports they covered. Which means that a specific dollar amount of imports may cost the importer either more or less--depending on the market price of the ICs. Every single product on the planet will have to have an artificial value, equal to IC's, attached to it. Not the "Free Market" value of an item, but a false government assigned value. And an army of Bureaucrats will have to constantly be adjusting those values as new products are introduced, and old products removed or modified.
|
|