|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 23, 2011 12:21:50 GMT -6
Below are excerpts from an excellent Economy-In-Crisis article about how to reduce our trade deficit and return manufacturing and jobs to the United States. This article is unique in that the word "Tariff" is frequently used.Solutions" The United States is facing economic disaster on a scale few nations have ever experienced. Most people are unaware of the easily observable signs of this emerging crisis. While we persist in our superpower mentality, we have quietly become a 2nd-class country in many respects.
We no longer manufacture what we need to sustain ourselves, we import much more than we export, and we are selling off our assets and taking on massive debts to sustain a standard of living we can no longer afford. Not only is this not the way America became a superpower but it is a sure way to lose this status.
We are failing even to acknowledge predatory foreign trade practices undermining US industry. Instead we encourage US manufacturers to design, engineer, and produce in 3rd world markets like Mexico and China.
Reversing the Trend: Some Suggestions for Action
Access to our markets must be conditioned [restricted ] on a strategic analysis of our own national needs first and foremost. As things stand, we have handed our sovereign rights to our domestic markets to international bodies like the World Trade Organization and are committed to disastrous "one-way free trade" agreements such as Value Added Tax regulations and NAFTA. We are in a dramatically different position from emerging low-wage markets. They have everything to gain, and we have everything to lose. Our policies should carefully protect our wealth and resources rather than simply provide the lowest consumer cost regardless of the impact on our industries and our workers.
Promoting open markets and economic growth abroad will not alone rebalance America’s trade accounts and domestic industrial collapse....Dramatic new direction is required.
Key Solutions
Drastic action is needed to restore our economic and financial independence and we must begin immediately to rebuild our industries. The 1st essential is that our government should ensure that it is once again profitable to produce most goods and services in American factories employing American workers.
We must establish policies that prevent other countries from doing to us what they would never let us do to them. Specifically, • We must halt the sale of key assets to foreign entities. • We must also close opportunities for foreign corporations to compete unfairly against our home industries.... • We should look to the way other nations have established industrial superiority over us and try to copy their best policies. • We should not allow individuals and companies to profit by selling out the Unites States.
No plan to revive our economic and industrial self-sufficiency will be pain-free. Because our industrial decline has already gone so far – it has been proceeding rapidly for more than 30 years already – restoring our industry to world-leading standards of competitiveness will require serious restrictions on trade and investment flows. Despite indisputable evidence that current policies have proved grossly inadequate or even counterproductive in the past, our leaders remain committed to a business-as-usual strategy that is doomed to failure.
The stimulation for new policies must come directly from the broad American public. Voters must use all reasonable methods to pressure elected officials. Without direct and immediate action, there will soon be little left to save.
Defense
Our industries, assets, resources, and companies need to be protected from foreign countries and corporations seeking to gain control of key industrial processes and technologies. This would include preventing the sale of strategic US domestic companies to foreign companies and eliminating offshore outsourcing except in extreme circumstances.
Fair Trade Our trade treaties should protect our country from predatory foreign countries and companies seeking to weaken or destroy American industry. To that end, tariffs should be erected where needed and where practical.
Experience has shown that it is futile to expect other countries to adopt our policies on, for instance, fair and free competition. What we can do is control the impact of their policies on our economy. The most obvious tool we have is tariffs on their exports. No doubt our tariffs would set off retaliation abroad. We would also have to accept that demand for US debt would decrease. But in the long run, these negatives would be much more than offset by positive effects as American entrepreneurs and industrial executives enjoyed a massive incentive to renew our industrial base.
Domestic Industry Competitiveness In addition to establishing protection for our industry and country, we should properly align our companies with the national interest by changing the incentive system within which they operate. The tax structure should be changed to encourage industrial revival, particularly in industries which have been hit worst by unfair foreign competition. One simple but highly effective measure would be to shorten the depreciation schedules on capital investment and research spending. Meanwhile capital gains taxes should be increased to discourage short-term thinking and reduce the incentive for entrepreneurs to cash out.....
The article's author offers a number of "suggested solutions" to fixing our economic problems. The best of those are:
• Control the balance of trade deficit. The majority of this money leaves our economy and never returns. The money that does return is the means through which foreign companies are able to accumulate funds to purchase our best companies. • Amend or get out of our agreement with the WTO. It places our domestic trade laws in the hands of an undemocratic organization whose decisions have been consistently and unfairly adjudicated. • Eliminate the foreign Value Added Tax (VAT) discrepancy. It unjustifiably subsidizes foreign exports to us, while simultaneously penalizing our exports to them. • Amend or get out of NAFTA. It incentivizes our companies to move productive facilities out of our country.... • Use tariffs selectively to prevent the loss of strategic and endangered industries....
Free trade has been a disaster. It must be replaced with intelligent trade that prevents foreign predatory practices and better serves U.S. interests.
OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER:...
• It must be profitable to manufacture in America otherwise domestic companies will outsource their manufacturing. • America is losing a major economics war by relinquishing management and control of the economy through effects of our balance of trade deficit, outsourcing, subsidized insourcing and foreign tax benefits. • Consider the consequences of losing whole industries such as publishing, autos, movies, steel, electronics, clothing and how it impacts national security and living standards. • We need to analyze and correct: 1. Negative effects of WTO rules and decisions regarding their impact on our economy. 2. Violations of WTO rules practiced by other countries to our detriment 3. Restrictions imposed by foreign governments on American exporting companies."
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 23, 2011 14:11:25 GMT -6
wow someone said tariffs, though he sort of blows it at the end:
It's wage disparity which causes all the problems whether it's in a "strategic industry" or not.
And what the hell is an "endangered industry"? hehe, we have industries on the extinction list, long gone, well beyond "endangered".
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 23, 2011 16:19:58 GMT -6
wow someone said tariffs, though he sort of blows it at the end: It's wage disparity which causes all the problems whether it's in a "strategic industry" or not. Exactly. ALL of our industries are endangered on that count. We should put Tariffs on everything except oil and non-food, raw material imports.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jan 24, 2011 23:30:28 GMT -6
We don't need tariffs on food raw materials, just 100% inspection.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 25, 2011 2:50:41 GMT -6
We don't need tariffs on food raw materials, just 100% inspection. GB I agree. No Tariffs on raw materials, just manufactured materials.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 5, 2011 2:45:05 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, I’m a proponent of a proposal to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods that was first introduced to the Senate in 2006. This simple concept of Import Certificates, (ICs) is not simplistic and is worthy of consideration. It’s superior to a tariff policy. Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_CertificatesThe topic entitled “A remedy for USA's trade deficit of goods” Started in this forum board on Feb 16, 2010, 9:29am and last posted on Mar 21, 2010, 6:59am. Read more: unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalization&action=display&thread=6519#ixzz1D3yYZk9JFederal tariffs and this trade proposal of transferable Import certificates, (ICs) would both to some extent increase prices of foreign goods to USA purchasers and require federal assessment of USA’s imported goods. It’s expected that tariffs would reduce US trade deficits but under the IC proposal USA would never suffer a global trade deficit of assessed goods. Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP. Because this IC trade policy while eliminating USA’s trade deficit of assessed goods indirectly subsidizes USA’s exported goods, it will also increase USA’s aggregate sum of imports plus exports more than otherwise. Only exporters of USA goods who choose to pay the assessment fees will have their goods assessed and receive transferable ICs. Importers of goods are required to have their goods assessed and must surrender ICs covering their goods’ assessed values to enable their imported goods to enter the USA. Surrendered ICs are canceled. A tariff method would be a completely federal driven policy that determines the price increases of foreign goods to USA purchasers and the increased federal revenue due to those tariffs. Under this proposal the open market prices of ICs determine the additional prices to of foreign goods to USA purchasers. The IC prices are an indirect reward to exporters of USA goods and an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA’s exported goods. All of this is very much unlike government driven tariff systems. Note that within descriptions of the IC method every reference to “indirect” rather than “direct” is a reference to market reaction rather than to government regulation. The additions to the prices of foreign goods to USA purchasers are additional federal revenue when they are due to tariffs and they’re additional revenue to exporters of USA goods when they’re due to ICs. Increase of USA’s exports due to additional exporters’ revenues rather than additional federal revenues, will greater increase our GDP and improve our economy. I contend this IC proposal is superior to any other existing or proposed trade policy. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 5, 2011 8:19:06 GMT -6
We don't need tariffs on food raw materials, just 100% inspection. GB I agree. No Tariffs on raw materials, just manufactured materials. Don't think there's a difference, coal mining isn't exactly grunt work these days, they get payed allot and no longer have high casualties and get black lung.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 5, 2011 8:26:27 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, I’m a proponent of a proposal to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods that was first introduced to the Senate in 2006. This simple concept of Import Certificates, (ICs) is not simplistic and is worthy of consideration. It’s superior to a tariff policy. Refer to: www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_CertificatesThe topic entitled “A remedy for USA's trade deficit of goods” Started in this forum board on Feb 16, 2010, 9:29am and last posted on Mar 21, 2010, 6:59am. Read more: unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalization&action=display&thread=6519#ixzz1D3yYZk9JFederal tariffs and this trade proposal of transferable Import certificates, (ICs) would both to some extent increase prices of foreign goods to USA purchasers and require federal assessment of USA’s imported goods. It’s expected that tariffs would reduce US trade deficits but under the IC proposal USA would never suffer a global trade deficit of assessed goods. Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP. Because this IC trade policy while eliminating USA’s trade deficit of assessed goods indirectly subsidizes USA’s exported goods, it will also increase USA’s aggregate sum of imports plus exports more than otherwise. Only exporters of USA goods who choose to pay the assessment fees will have their goods assessed and receive transferable ICs. Importers of goods are required to have their goods assessed and must surrender ICs covering their goods’ assessed values to enable their imported goods to enter the USA. Surrendered ICs are canceled. A tariff method would be a completely federal driven policy that determines the price increases of foreign goods to USA purchasers and the increased federal revenue due to those tariffs. Under this proposal the open market prices of ICs determine the additional prices to of foreign goods to USA purchasers. The IC prices are an indirect reward to exporters of USA goods and an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA’s exported goods. All of this is very much unlike government driven tariff systems. Note that within descriptions of the IC method every reference to “indirect” rather than “direct” is a reference to market reaction rather than to government regulation. The additions to the prices of foreign goods to USA purchasers are additional federal revenue when they are due to tariffs and they’re additional revenue to exporters of USA goods when they’re due to ICs. Increase of USA’s exports due to additional exporters’ revenues rather than additional federal revenues, will greater increase our GDP and improve our economy. I contend this IC proposal is superior to any other existing or proposed trade policy. Respectfully, Supposn Sounds like a chicken-shit way for free-traitors to maintain this internat-corporate tyranny, while simultaneously propagandizing "Buy America", they'd just print more certificates and hand them out like candy to their favorite corporate whore donators. And "import certificates" aren't listed in the Constitution, Tariffs are. This is as bad as War Powers Resolution of 1973, thank you're lucky stars no president has deliberately abused that act....yet
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 5, 2011 10:10:34 GMT -6
This might work if every $1 of imports SOLD required the purchase of $1's worth of import certificates. In other words, if certificates value was based not on the price the importer paid the foreign country for the import, but rather on the price he sold the good for on the US market.
But if Import Certificates allow the purchase of imports that are based on the importers cost of purchase, instead of the sale of the good on the US market, then this definitely would not work.
Without a dollar-for-dollar exchange based on the sale price in the US market, we'd still have trade deficits. If export certificates were sold to importers directly, based on their purchase price of imports, it could still result in favorable end sale price of imports to American consumers--especially from places like China where the cost of production (and goods) is often a fraction of that of US costs.
An importer could purchase an import certificate for say $5 million of foreign goods--that also cost them $5 million (for a total cost of $10 million)--and then sell those goods on the US market for $20 million. They'd still make a $10 million profit. And if the domestic price of the equivalent American good was $50 million, the importer could still undercut the price of the American good by $30 million. Thus the imported good would still displace the equivalent American good.
Another problem with Import Certificates is that, even though they are issued to exporters for the dollar amount of their exports, they're sold to importers at the "free-market" price. For example, an exporter who exports $100 million of goods receives a $100 million import certificate--good for $100 million of imports. But he could sell it to an importer for $2 million dollars. So for $2 million, an importer could buy $100 million of foreign goods. And, as above, if the equivalent American product was selling for say $200 million, the importer could sell his $100 million (or $102 million) worth of goods for $150 million, and still undercut the American products by $50 million. And thus the importer could again displace the American good from the market.
For import certificates to work, they cannot simply be based on a dollar-for-dollar cost of the imported good. If they were based on something like a 2:1 or 3:1 value--like say a $30 million import certificate (based on $30 million of exports) buying only $10 million of imports--then they might work. Sort of.
But Tariffs still seem like a much simpler and more manageable way to control trade, and reduce our trade deficit. The complexity of an import certicate program makes it ripe for potential gaming of the system.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 5, 2011 17:57:02 GMT -6
The people are brainwashed to the point where someone who does want protectionism is totally scared of the word Tariff, like it's the N word, or invented by Hitler. "Hey let's try this instead", the word Tariff isn't used.
We are in reaaaally big trouble, might have to look for a new country to live in.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 5, 2011 23:35:33 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, within this Import Certificates proposal, assessments of all good are their value at U.S. port of entry or exit. USA import and export goods are assessed in a similar manner. There will be a list of specific scarce or precious minerals. The assessment of goods will exclude the value of all such materials integral to the goods being assessed.
We do not wish to encourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems to enable the import of high tech or more labor intensive products. We do not wish to encourage or inhibit our global trade of petroleum products. Our policy regarding petroleum should be a separate issue for the U.S. Congress to deal with. Similarly congress may determine to add natural gas and/or coal to that list of specific minerals.
Have you scanned the referred provided links?
Exporters of U.S. goods are entitled to CHOSE TO PAY a federal assessment fee. Those fees are not net federal revenue but they cover all federal assessment and administration expenses due to this trade policy. Exporters’ who do not agree to pay an assessment fee for their shipment will not have their shipment assessed. When the exported goods leave the USA, the exporter receives transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) that permits an importer to bring goods of the certificate’s face value into the USA.
ICs are only issued to exporters of USA goods. Importers are required to surrender ICs for the assessed value of their import goods and the surrendered ICs are cancelled.
My prior message to this discussion tread explained why I contend that this market driven proposal would be superior to a federally driven tariff policy.
The objections you expressed within your response to my message do not seem to be considering the trade proposal I’m advocating. You may want to reconsider your response and rewrite your objections before I answer all of them. See my next message).
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 6, 2011 0:17:28 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, within this Import Certificates proposal, assessments of all good are their value at U.S. port of entry or exit. I'm assuming that means their cost to the importer, not the price they sell it to American consumers. Yes, I certainly did. That's how I determined what the IC weakness is. Actually, I'm not seeing how anything you've said addresses my objections at all. And what I'm saying is fairly simple. You can still buy cheap imports cheaply with import certificates. All the import certificates do is make them more expensive. But this increase in price may be very small, since it is "market-driven." To put this in different words, if the imports are very low-priced, then the import certificate price/cost needed to purchase them will probably a be low as well (and may be even lower still, since it's based on a "market" price.) Thus the only beneficial effect of the certificate would be to make a cheap import somewhat less cheap. But even after buying the import certificate, the cost of the import could still be much cheaper than the equivalent American-made product. Let me give another example. If you have an import certificate allowing you to purchase $100 million of purchased foreign goods (which you paid a "market price" of only $2 million for), sell the imports in the American market for $200 million, when the equivalent American good sells for $500 million, you'll undercut the American goods by $300 million. If the American producer's cost of production is $450 million, you'll be selling the imports for $250 million less than the American producer's cost of production. As such, you'll put the American producer out of business, and cause all of it's employees to lose their jobs. Import certificates will NOT work if they're based on the importers cost of purchase from a cheap-labor country like China, especially if you use a "market-driven" price for the price of the import certificates, since the import certificates may cost much less than the cost of the imports it allows to be purchased.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 6, 2011 1:02:09 GMT -6
................. An importer could purchase an import certificate for say $5 million of foreign goods--that also cost them $5 million (for a total cost of $10 million)--and then sell those goods on the US market for $20 million. They'd still make a $10 million profit. And if the domestic price of the equivalent American good was $50 million, the importer could still undercut the price of the American good by $30 million. Thus the imported good would still displace the equivalent American good.......... Unlawflcombatnt, you’re describing the purchase of an IC that permits the import of $5 million dollars of goods into the USA for $5 million? At an open market IC price of $1,000 per $1,000 face value of IC, Prices of U.S. goods to foreign purchasers could be reduced to little more than the federal assessment fees. Those fees just cover federal assessment and administration expenses for this trade policy. Exporters could afford to practically give U.S. goods away. They’ll get their entire price from their resale of IC’s. This proposal’s induced additional revenue to exporters of USA goods will be an indirect and effective export subsidy, but I believe it’s unrealistic to expect them to be that effective. If the imported goods are assessed as $5 million at U.S. port of entry, how do you expect the importer to sell the goods for $20 million? This proposal prevents USA’s imports of goods to exceed our exports of goods. All assessment values are at the U.S. ports of entry or exit. The additional revenues of U.S. exporters of foreign goods are indirectly due to the open market price of ICs. The additions to prices of foreign goods sold to U.S. purchasers are indirectly related to ICs market price. Reduction of U.S. goods prices to foreign purchasers are indirectly related to U.S. goods’ exports’ additional revenue. All of this occurs because of federal assessments of trade goods and the issuing of ICs. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 6, 2011 2:14:01 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, within this Import Certificates proposal, assessments of all good are their value at U.S. port of entry or exit. I'm assuming that means their cost to the importer, not the price they sell it to American consumers......... ...... Actually, I'm not seeing how anything you've said addresses my objections at all. And what I'm saying is fairly simple. You can still buy cheap imports cheaply with import certificates. All the import certificates do is make them more expensive. But this increase in price may be very small, since it is "market-driven." Unlawflcombatnt, within this Import Certificate, (IC) proposal imports are assessed at their market value when reaching the U.S. port of entry. I understand that you prefer they be assessed at their potential cost if manufactured in the USA but that’s not what’s proposed. On the other hand USA’s imports cannot exceed the assessed value of our exports and the additional prices to U.S. purchasers of foreign goods are additional revenue to exporters of U.S. goods, which is an indirect but effective subsidy for U.S. exports. You’re displeased that the USA could still benefit from cheaper, but not the cheapest possibly priced foreign goods. Tariffs cannot absolutely prevent U.S. trade deficits of goods’ assessed values unless they’re sufficiently severe to assure us of similarly drastic counter tariffs and reduced exports. This IC proposal will eliminate our trade deficit of applicable goods and increase the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports more than otherwise. It is not our global trade but rather our global trade deficit that’s detrimental to USA’s GDP and median wage. We’re not in a politically amiable era but if better known, the economically superior IC rather than tariff policy would be politically and economically more palatable. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 6, 2011 3:00:26 GMT -6
So apparently your contention is that our exporters are going to be able to sell their goods so cheaply in foreign countries--due to the money they make off selling import certificates--that it'll offset the current loss of the domestic market to imports. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.) Even if that is the case, it'll make practically no difference whatsoever with China, with whom we have our largest non-oil trade deficit (-$230 billion deficit, and $320 billion purchase of imports.) China will subsidize its industries to undercut whatever prices America tries to sell exports to them at. And, as I stated previously, it'll make little difference on imports from China. The IC's will simply raise the price somewhat on extremely cheap Chinese goods. Furthermore, China's potential consumer import market is relatively small, making the potential dollar-value of our import sales to them small. Less than 1/2 of China's $5.7 trillion GDP goes toward consumer spending. Their consumer market is probably less than $2.7 trillion. Compare that with the US's ~$12 trillion consumer market. But with China it's even worse than that. Generously assuming that the typical Chinese worker makes $1/hour, and works 40 hours/week, then that's an annual income of $2,000. At that rate, the typical Chinese worker cannot purchase any significant amount of American product. And the small amount of more affluent Chinese consumers--who could afford to purchase American products like automobiles--are buying them from American-owned production facilities in China (like GM). The point here is that with China, which makes up 1/2 of our non-oil trade deficit, Import Certificates won't make any significant difference. They don't even have the potential to make a significant difference. If the imported goods are assessed as $5 million at U.S. port of entry, how do you expect the importer to sell the goods for $20 million? Admittedly, I don't know how the assessment at the port of entry works. (I was hoping you would try to clarify that issue, but you did not.) It seems likely it would be based on what the importer pays to purchase the import from the foreign producer, not what the importer sells it for on the US market. Thus on dirt-cheap goods from China (or Vietnam or Mexico or Pakistan or Honduras), the assessment would be low. And an assessed value $5 million could easily be placed on goods that sell for $20 million or more on the US market. And in such cases, the cost of the import certificate is not enough to prevent the foreign import from displacing the American equivalent good from the American market. However, import certificates might well have a significant effect on trade with countries that have labor costs similar to those of the US--like Japan, Germany, Canada, France, Britain, and maybe even South Korea. In trade with those countries, the additional cost of paying for an import certificate might well shift the balance of trade more in our favor. Unfortunately, those countries make up less than half our non-oil trade deficit. Without TARIFFS, we're never going make a dent in our trade deficit with cheap labor countries like China, Vietnam, Mexico, and others. Worse still, we are continuing to lose jobs to those countries. And we will continue to do so, even with a trade policy using Import Certificates.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 6, 2011 7:35:51 GMT -6
It would be easy for US importers to minimize values of items imported, but that would affect the amount they could take off their taxes for profits from those imports. If Baxter now claims to pay $100 an ounce for Heparin, that that really costs them $10 to make in Communist China, that $90 difference is profit to their Chinese or Irish or Cayman Islands subsidiary, where taxes are low. How much tariff would be fair? Apply high enough tariff, and they will lessen the price at POE, increasing domestic paper profits.
Whereas, 100% inspection of Heparin at our port of entry could cost Baxter more than making and inspecting it here. People have died from tainted Heparin.
GB
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 6, 2011 8:21:57 GMT -6
So apparently your contention is that our exporters are going to be able to sell their goods so cheaply in foreign countries--due to the money they make off selling import certificates--that it'll offset the current loss of the domestic market to imports. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.) ..............Admittedly, I don't know how the assessment at the port of entry works. (I was hoping you would try to clarify that issue, but you did not.) Unlawflcombatnt, No, that’s not my position. I generally prefer (to the extent feasible), offering carrots rather than the using the stick. It helps to also have a stick. We indirectly reward exporters of U.S. goods and its not possible for us to suffer a trade deficit of the goods as assessed. Trade transactions can be simple or complex. The assessment of goods is unconcerned with whatever “deals” are made between participating parties. Federal guide lines that are periodically up-dated will determine the manner of assessments. It’s important that federal policy be to assess both imports and exports in the same manner and assessments be based upon the U.S. market values of goods in U.S. dollars; they are not based upon the prices of goods beyond U.S. borders. This is a unilateral rather than a bilateral trade policy and it grants the federal government no additional policy discretion. Government cannot negotiate away the interests of Louisiana rice farmers because the Department of Defense wants to retain military bases in Okinawa. Determinations of assessments are technical rather than a policy decisions. Our government will not pick winners or losers. The market will continue to determine what we export to where and what we import from where. The critical difference is that our aggregate imports of goods cannot exceed the aggregate value of our exports and that imports and exports be assessed in the same manner. It is our trade deficit rather than our global trade itself that's detrimental to our GDP and median wage. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 6, 2011 14:29:08 GMT -6
It’s important that...assessments be based upon the U.S. market values of goods in U.S. dollars If Import Certificates' "buying power" would be assessed that way, an Import Certificate plan would help..... a lot. If it actually did work that way, it would be an excellent solution. However, upon re-reading the Wiki reference you provided, it does not sound like assessments will be performed in that manner. (Admittedly, it's not clear at all what the assessments will be based on.) But since the IC's are essentially a permit to buy imported goods, it's hard to imagine how they would work--other than being assessed on the importer's price of purchase of imports (as opposed to the sale price in the US market.) As I think you've implied, the Federal government could attempt to assess the potential sale price of the good in the American market, and base the assessment (of the dollar-value of the goods) on that. But that seems like it would be very difficult to do. The Government would have to predict the sales price of all imported goods. In all fairness, however, Tariffs have the same drawback. They're based on the importer's price of purchase from the foreign seller. But a Tariff policy would be much simpler to implement, and more readily adjustable when the need arises. The critical difference is that our aggregate imports of goods cannot exceed the aggregate value of our exports and that imports and exports be assessed in the same manner. I agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 6, 2011 15:39:57 GMT -6
I'm assuming that means their cost to the importer, not the price they sell it to American consumers......... ...... Actually, I'm not seeing how anything you've said addresses my objections at all. And what I'm saying is fairly simple. You can still buy cheap imports cheaply with import certificates. All the import certificates do is make them more expensive. But this increase in price may be very small, since it is "market-driven." Unlawflcombatnt, within this Import Certificate, (IC) proposal imports are assessed at their market value when reaching the U.S. port of entry... And the bureaucrat in charge of this chicken shit system is a free-traitor, who determines the "market value" of something. Not to mention it would generate practically zero revenue for the government where Tariffs actually do generate revenue. Hey you know what would be cool? Getting rid of private income taxes and replacing it with Tariffs. Re-instituting Slavery, and importing 100 million slaves would also eliminate our trade deficit, but I wouldn't recommend it as a long term solution. This entire Import Certificate things sounds like an invention of Free Traitors trying to get re-elected. They can pretend to be "creating jobs", but hide behind a mountain of paperwork, hide behind a bureaucratic framework, and hide behind a buffer of concepts, ideas, and "good intentions" while simultaneously FUCKING everyone over with Free Trade.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 6, 2011 16:53:41 GMT -6
I found a link to some of the information on this proposed bill. The method of valuation of imports was yet to be determined as of time of submission of the bill. In other words, how much $1's-worth of import certificate would allow to be imported was still up in the air. More specifically, it was not yet determined what that $1 would refer to--whether it was the importer's paid price, or the retail sale price on the US market. www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-3899"1) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT- Except as described in paragraph (5), any person who imports a good into the United States shall submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than 90 days after the date on which the good enters the United States, a Certificate with an aggregate face value equal to or greater than the appraised value of the good imported pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) VALUATION OF IMPORTED GOODS- The Secretary shall establish a method for the valuation of goods imported into the United States. The method may include the use of the declared dollar value of the goods on the Entry Summary"
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 6, 2011 17:34:20 GMT -6
I found a link to some of the information on this proposed bill. The method of valuation of imports was yet to be determined as of time of submission of the bill. In other words, how much $1's-worth of import certificate would allow to be imported was still up in the air. More specifically, it was not yet determined what that $1 would refer to--whether it was the importer's paid price, or the retail sale price on the US market. www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-3899"1) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT- Except as described in paragraph (5), any person who imports a good into the United States shall submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than 90 days after the date on which the good enters the United States, a Certificate with an aggregate face value equal to or greater than the appraised value of the good imported pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) VALUATION OF IMPORTED GOODS- The Secretary shall establish a method for the valuation of goods imported into the United States. The method may include the use of the declared dollar value of the goods on the Entry Summary" Oh that's good, give Homeland Security money printing powers. They must be real economic professionals at the Department of Homeland Security.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 6, 2011 18:37:07 GMT -6
.............However, upon re-reading the Wiki reference you provided, it does not sound like assessments will be performed in that manner. (Admittedly, it's not clear at all what the assessments will be based on.) But since the IC's are essentially a permit to buy imported goods, it's hard to imagine how they would work--other than being assessed on the importer's price of purchase of imports (as opposed to the sale price in the US market.) As I think you've implied, the Federal government could attempt to assess the potential sale price of the good in the American market, and base the assessment (of the dollar-value of the goods) on that. But that seems like it would be very difficult to do. The Government would have to predict the sales price of all imported goods. In all fairness, however, Tariffs have the same drawback. ........... But a Tariff policy would be much simpler to implement, and more readily adjustable when the need arises. Unlawflcombatnt, I suppose it’s a difference without distinction; ICs are not needed to purchase goods but rather to bring the goods into the USA. The assessed value is not based upon an individual transaction’s price. It is the federal assessors’ determinations based upon explicitly drafted and annually updated guide lines of goods’ prices in the U.S. domestic market. Government would not be predicting what will be but rather what did occur. Similar to most other federal decisions, exporters or importers would have the right to appeal those decisions. Federal regulations may (to some) seem simpler than open market determinations, but an IC policy is superior to a tariff policy. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 6, 2011 18:52:32 GMT -6
I found a link to some of the information on this proposed bill. The method of valuation of imports was yet to be determined as of time of submission of the bill. In other words, how much $1's-worth of import certificate would allow to be imported was still up in the air. More specifically, it was not yet determined what that $1 would refer to--whether it was the importer's paid price, or the retail sale price on the US market. www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-3899"1) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT- Except as described in paragraph (5), any person who imports a good into the United States shall submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than 90 days after the date on which the good enters the United States, a Certificate with an aggregate face value equal to or greater than the appraised value of the good imported pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) VALUATION OF IMPORTED GOODS- The Secretary shall establish a method for the valuation of goods imported into the United States. The method may include the use of the declared dollar value of the goods on the Entry Summary" Unlawflcombatnt, you’re quoting a draft of a bill that was submitted to the U.S. Senate in 2006. I’m describing what I believe would be a superior revision of that draft. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 6, 2011 21:20:21 GMT -6
The assessed value is not based upon an individual transaction’s price... It is the federal assessors’ determinations based upon explicitly drafted and annually updated guide lines of goods’ prices in the U.S. domestic market. Yes, that would definitely be an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 7, 2011 15:22:57 GMT -6
Federal regulations may (to some) seem simpler than open market determinations, but an IC policy is superior to a tariff policy. No it isn't. A) It will generate very little revenue for Federal Government. You know there's this massive federal deficit? I'm sure you've heard about it in the news. B) It allows bureaucrats to control value or print, like the Federal Reserve does with the dollar. And those bureaucrats will all be Free Traders, like the Federal Reserve. C) It's complicated, making hiding behind mountains of paperwork and concepts an easy thing for Free Traders to do; pretending to want to "bring jobs to America" while simultaneously doing the opposite. D) It's functions as paper money. Paper money can be printed, and paper money can be counterfeit. The buzz-word "open market" is used, so it has to be better, right CON's.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 8, 2011 23:49:21 GMT -6
There’s some common ground shared by tariff and IC trade proposals.
Both require assessing the values of goods and any methods chosen would not be more or less compatible to one or the other proposal. Both would increase the prices of foreign goods to U.S. purchasers. Both would require the U.S. President to offer our resignation from free trade agreements such as NAFTA, and the WTO. Both would decrease our trade deficit of goods.
Those who prefer tariffs and/or are not knowledgeable or even aware of the IC proposals would also more likely believe that tariffs would lesser increase prices of foreign goods to U.S. purchasers; I disagree with them but I also do not bet on horse races.
Bear in mind that tariffs will fail to sufficiently decrease USA’s trade deficit unless the proposals sufficiently increase prices of foreign goods to U.S. purchasers.
ICs will prevent a trade deficit of applicable goods regardless of ICs open market prices. Only a drastically excessive tariff rate could consistently have the same affect upon our trade balance.
Tariffs would be an additional source of federal revenue.
IC’s are an opportunity for exporters of U.S. goods to gain additional revenues and thus are an indirect but effective inducement to increase U.S. exports of goods. It would increase USA’s sum of aggregate imports plus exports more than otherwise. I have good reason to contend that ICs rather than tariffs would greater decrease USA’s trade deficit and greater increase USA’s GDP and median wage.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 9, 2011 2:21:11 GMT -6
There’s some common ground shared by tariff and IC trade proposals. Yes. Both require assessing the values of goods and any methods chosen would not be more or less compatible to one or the other proposal. Both would increase the prices of foreign goods to U.S. purchasers. Both would require the U.S. President to offer our resignation from free trade agreements such as NAFTA, and the WTO. Yes. That should be the starting point--resigning from NAFTA and the WTO. Both would decrease our trade deficit of goods. Those who prefer tariffs and/or are not knowledgeable or even aware of the IC proposals would also more likely believe that tariffs would lesser increase prices of foreign goods to U.S. purchasers; I disagree with them but I also do not bet on horse races. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you re-word this? Bear in mind that tariffs will fail to sufficiently decrease USA’s trade deficit unless the proposals sufficiently increase prices of foreign goods to U.S. purchasers. Yes, indeed. That's why Tariffs need to be at the 100-200% level--at least on Chinese imports. ICs will prevent a trade deficit of applicable goods regardless of ICs open market prices. Only a drastically excessive tariff rate could consistently have the same affect upon our trade balance. That may be true. But only if ICs are assessed on the US consumer market sales price of imports. It's not true if ICs are based on the importer's price of purchase from the foreign country. Tariffs would be an additional source of federal revenue. Yes. And that's an extremely important consideration. If high Tariffs fail to reduce the inflow of imports on to the US market, at least they'll raise revenue. And those Tariffs can be increased the following year if need be to have the desired effect of reducing imports. If 100% Tariffs on Chinese imports of $300 billion cause no reduction in imports, then the US has just raised $300 billion in revenue. And the following year, Tariffs could be raised to 200% if desired to reduce Chinese imports. And if that failed to have the desired effect, then Tariffs could be raised even higher the next year. Meanwhile, every rise in Tariffs on Chinese imports would increase Federal revenue significantly, until it started reducing Chinese imports. Tariffs are a win-win situation for the US IC’s are an opportunity for exporters of U.S. goods to gain additional revenues and thus are an indirect but effective inducement to increase U.S. exports of goods. I think the benefit of increased "exports" is a false hope. It's never going to be as important as the loss of our own domestic market to foreign imports. ALL foreign economies are smaller than ours. ALL foreign consumer markets are smaller than ours by several orders of magnitude. The idea that we can offset the loss of our domestic market to imports by increasing our exports is an Obamanesque fantasy. Foreign consumer markets are not now, nor ever will be, the main source of sales for American producers. It is the American market that matters the most--by light years. The American consumer market is 20% of world GDP. It's misguided to risk losing that market for the sake of a pittance of an increase in exports.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 9, 2011 2:54:49 GMT -6
Federal regulations may (to some) seem simpler than open market determinations, but an IC policy is superior to a tariff policy. No it isn't. A) It will generate very little revenue for Federal Government. You know there's this massive federal deficit? I'm sure you've heard about it in the news. B) It allows bureaucrats to control value or print, like the Federal Reserve does with the dollar. And those bureaucrats will all be Free Traders, like the Federal Reserve. C) It's complicated, making hiding behind mountains of paperwork and concepts an easy thing for Free Traders to do; pretending to want to "bring jobs to America" while simultaneously doing the opposite. D) It's functions as paper money. Paper money can be printed, and paper money can be counterfeit. The buzz-word "open market" is used, so it has to be better, right CON's. FredOrBob, the IC proposal’s purpose is not to directly increase federal revenue. It will significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods and by offering exporters of USA goods an opportunity to acquire additional revenue it would indirectly but effectively increase USA’s volumes of exports more than otherwise. GDP is increased by an amount significantly greater than the trade deficit's decrease. GDP bolsters the median wage. Your message is less than explicit but you seem to be implying that the federal government would or could under this proposal print unlimited amounts of Import Certificates, (ICs). On the contrary the government is granted no discretion in the matter. Exporters of USA goods are entitled, (providing they agree to pay the assessment fees for their for their individual shipments), to have their goods assessed prior to being shipped from the USA. Upon the goods departure from the USA, the federal government will issue and deliver to the exporter an IC with the face value of the assessed goods. The Board of the Federal Reserve would not be able to determine and issue more or less ICs than the values of U.S. exported goods that have been assessed. What good is attempting to surrender counterfeit IC’s to U.S. Customs? You’re chances are better counterfeiting currency. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 9, 2011 15:32:25 GMT -6
No it isn't. A) It will generate very little revenue for Federal Government. You know there's this massive federal deficit? I'm sure you've heard about it in the news. B) It allows bureaucrats to control value or print, like the Federal Reserve does with the dollar. And those bureaucrats will all be Free Traders, like the Federal Reserve. C) It's complicated, making hiding behind mountains of paperwork and concepts an easy thing for Free Traders to do; pretending to want to "bring jobs to America" while simultaneously doing the opposite. D) It's functions as paper money. Paper money can be printed, and paper money can be counterfeit. The buzz-word "open market" is used, so it has to be better, right CON's. A) FredOrBob, the IC proposal’s purpose is not to directly increase federal revenue. B) It will significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods and by offering exporters of USA goods an opportunity to acquire additional revenue it would indirectly but effectively increase USA’s volumes of exports more than otherwise. C) GDP is increased by an amount significantly greater than the trade deficit's decrease. GDP bolsters the median wage. Your message is less than explicit but you seem to be implying that the federal government would or could under this proposal print unlimited amounts of Import Certificates, (ICs). On the contrary the government is granted no discretion in the matter. Exporters of USA goods are entitled, (providing they agree to pay the assessment fees for their for their individual shipments), to have their goods assessed prior to being shipped from the USA. Upon the goods departure from the USA, the federal government will issue and deliver to the exporter an IC with the face value of the assessed goods. The Board of the Federal Reserve would not be able to determine and issue more or less ICs than the values of U.S. exported goods that have been assessed. What good is attempting to surrender counterfeit IC’s to U.S. Customs? You’re chances are better counterfeiting currency. Respectfully, Supposn A) conflicts with B) because a monetary penalty (like a Tariff) for importation would actually increase revenue for federal government. And so do the rich getting richer "bolster median wage" C) but it's not beneficial to the health of any society. And the Free Traders running the bureaucracy in charge of "assessing value" will cheat and over-assess the value of exports, which will have the same effect of printing more IC's. This idea's another Free Trade scam.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 9, 2011 15:34:14 GMT -6
Yes. That should be the starting point--resigning from NAFTA and the WTO. Both would decrease our trade deficit of goods. That's the beauty about the IC scam, we can still keep these FTA's while politicians are pretending to "create jobs" with a new bureaucracy involved with printing IC's.
|
|