|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 9, 2011 15:36:39 GMT -6
There’s some common ground shared by tariff and IC trade proposals. You said this bill was introduced in the Senate in 2006. Then it was a political ploy to gain votes for a couple of senators and nothing more. There is nothing in common with that and me wanting Tariffs.
|
|
|
Post by judes on Feb 9, 2011 21:35:00 GMT -6
Sorry I am coming into this conversation late, but I wanted to ask about something I wasn't clear on regarding the Import certificates. Are these certificates used as a medium of exchange between countries in place of currency? So the certificates are used as payment from importing country to exporting country and those certificates can then only be used for future trade to purchase goods from the country they originally obtained them from? So in essence they replace currency as the medium of exchange and can only be used for trade between countries? Isn't this similar to the original intention of the SDR's (special drawing rights)? Sorry I haven't read all the links so maybe I need to go do that.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 10, 2011 10:03:17 GMT -6
Yes, indeed. That's why Tariffs need to be at the 100-200% level--at least on Chinese imports. 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. 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. Tariffs are a win-win situation for the US. 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. Unlawflcombatnt, you are not among those who would fault this proposal because they contend it would excessively increase the prices of foreign goods within the U.S. market. I contend that the IC market price rather than government determined tariffs would in aggregate better regulate the prices of foreign goods within our domestic market. ///////////////////////////////// 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. Unlawflcombatnt, regardless of the ICs market price, USA could never suffer a trade deficit of the aggregate assessed goods. Cheaper foreign goods would not be of significant harm to our economy if they were not also accompanied by our trade deficit of goods. It’s important that the trade act be drafted as to barring (with good reasons), any future congressional explicit determinations to treat some specified goods in a differing manner. Both imports and exports, (i.e. regardless of goods nationality), should be assessed in the same manner. Assessment at U.S. entry or exit ports’ values denies any foreign nation of special advantage. I’m not altruistic. This proposal’s for the net economic interests of OUR nation. I do not wish to depress foreign wages but I’m opposed to sacrificing USA’s median wage on behalf of any others within or beyond our borders. /////////////////// ICs will prevent a trade deficit of applicable goods regardless of ICs open market prices. Unlawflcombatnt, if imports and exports are assessed in a uniform manner, then regardless of that manner of assessment or the determined prices, a U.S. trade deficit of goods at assessed prices will not and could not occur. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Unlawflcombatnt, per dollar of additional foreign goods prices to U.S., foreign goods sales subsidizing U.S. exports of goods would be far superior than the economic benefits of tariffs’ contributions to our federal revenue. The U.S. couldn’t possibly suffer a trade deficit of assessed goods under the IC proposal. U.S. consumers are unlikely to be content with fewer goods. Under the IC proposal, USA’s sum of aggregate imports plus exports will increase. To the extent that increase should lag, it forces U.S. production of goods (and services) alone to increase. Those are superior win-win situations. Only excessive tariffs could insure eliminating trade deficits of applicable goods. Contra-tariffs are then an almost absolute certainty. Why adopt an inferior policy when we can have a politically more palatable and economically superior trade policy. You’re mistaken when you state that we cannot increase our exports. If foreign producers want more access to our domestic markets, it’s to their best interests not to hinder our exports. I do not justify ICs because they'd increase exports due to our net losses to foreign products. Under an IC proposal there are no net losses of USA sales to foreign products. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 11, 2011 0:40:32 GMT -6
Yes, indeed. That's why Tariffs need to be at the 100-200% level--at least on Chinese imports. 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. 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. Tariffs are a win-win situation for the US. 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. Unlawflcombatnt, you are not among those who would fault this proposal because they contend it would excessively increase the prices of foreign goods within the U.S. market. I contend that the IC market price rather than government determined tariffs would in aggregate better regulate the prices of foreign goods within our domestic market. ///////////////////////////////// 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. Why? Because the CON buzz-phrase "Open market" is used in the description of IC's, where "Tariff" is equal to Hitler in the mind of a CON? By what magical mystery mechanism would IC reduce trade deficits without an equal tax a Tariff would impose? Didn't you just say the government would not be involved? Then who would "assess goods" if the government isn't involved? Take the poorest nation on earth, it can have an overall trade surplus and still be the poorest nation on earth. The plutocracy takes all the profit while everyone else lives at starvation level, i'd call that harmful. That's too bad cause nobody's bitching about Germany or Canada. That's what they all say, "it will increase exports, we will all live in paradise."
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 11, 2011 14:06:32 GMT -6
FredOrBob, I’ll discuss national issues and comparative advantages or disadvantageousness of various policies to deal with issues.
I’m endeavoring not to answer portions of messages that are dedicated to personalities and their motives. I want to concern myself only with resulting effects upon our nation.
Your messages don’t contain much that I should consider responding to.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 11, 2011 15:59:30 GMT -6
FredOrBob, I’ll discuss national issues and comparative advantages or disadvantageousness of various policies to deal with issues. I’m endeavoring not to answer portions of messages that are dedicated to personalities and their motives. I want to concern myself only with resulting effects upon our nation. Your messages don’t contain much that I should consider responding to. Respectfully, Supposn Ah, comparative advantage, free trader propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 25, 2011 16:31:37 GMT -6
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. FrerdOrBob, within this trade proposal there is no net government revenue. The federal fees to defray assessment and administration expenses due to the policy would be negligible. The additional cost to USA purchasers of foreign goods would primarily be an indirect but very effective subsidy of USA’s exports. This proposal is inconsequential to medical health. Reducing the trade deficit while not reducing the aggregate sum of USA’s imports plus exports would certainly increase our GDP more than otherwise and our GDP bolsters our median wage. What’s the point you are trying to make? Similar to other federal regulations, this trade proposal would function within the frame work of federal laws and government agents determinations are subject to appeal by any and all affected parties. The principle parties, (i.e. importers and exporters), all of their competitors and USA producers of competing or alternative goods or service products would all have opportunities to appeal decisions within administrative hearings or as a last resort within our federal courts. FredOrBob, I hope that I’m not mistaken. Your tirade “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” seems more suitable for a proponent of anarchy rather than a discusser of comparative government policies. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 25, 2011 16:51:12 GMT -6
Judes, the last sentence of your post was “Sorry I haven't read all the links so maybe I need to go do that”. I’ve been waiting for your next post. Refer to reply #5 of this discussion thread.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 25, 2011 23:12:26 GMT -6
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. FrerdOrBob, within this trade proposal there is no net government revenue. Therefore it will not effect the trade deficit.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Feb 26, 2011 2:28:01 GMT -6
FredOrBob, your reply #38 is completely inexplicit.
What’s “A”, what’s “B”? How would they “actually increase revenue for federal government” if within this trade proposal there’s no net government revenue? What “health to society” are you referring to? Why would this trade proposal not affect USA’s trade deficit?
The remainder your message seems to be an anarchist’s tirade rather than a discussion or comparatives of possible future USA trade policies.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 27, 2011 0:35:19 GMT -6
FredOrBob, your reply #38 is completely inexplicit. What’s “A”, what’s “B”? How would they “actually increase revenue for federal government” if within this trade proposal there’s no net government revenue? What “health to society” are you referring to? Why would this trade proposal not affect USA’s trade deficit? The remainder your message seems to be an anarchist’s tirade rather than a discussion or comparatives of possible future USA trade policies. Respectfully, Supposn This whole idea is an accounting scam invented by politicians.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 1, 2011 22:20:00 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, you’re correct to state that it would not (directly) generate additional federal revenue. The proposal would reduce USA’s trade deficit and to some extent increase the sum of USA's aggregate imports plus exports. It does not increase government spending, taxing, or debt. This would all be to our economic advantage. The proposal would do nothing that would directly to indirectly induce the Federal Reserve to increase or decrease U.S. dollars in circulation. Warren Buffett is of the opinion that this trade concept would bolster the value of the U.S. dollar. This proposal could certainly not decrease the value of the U.S. dollar. Import Certificates’, (ICs’) values would be due to their necessity for importing goods. They do not function as paper money. Gold, jewels, dollars or franks are not what an importer would be required to surrender in order to bring their goods into the USA. They would be required to surrender ICs which once used are then cancelled. Unlike tariffs, this simpler market driven proposal grants no policy discretion but the assessed value (within the USA), of our imports could never exceed that of our exports. Tariffs couldn’t possibly accomplish this unless the tariff rates were sufficient to drastically increase the prices of all foreign goods to USA purchasers. Tariffs would induce decreasing USA’s exports; this proposal would indirectly but effectively increase USA’s exports. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 2, 2011 1:32:14 GMT -6
Tariffs couldn’t possibly accomplish this unless the tariff rates were sufficient to drastically increase the prices of all foreign goods to USA purchasers. That's exactly what I've been suggesting every time I've advocated Tariffs--that they be sufficient to "drastically" increase the price of all foreign goods. That's why I've been advocating 100-200% Tariffs on manufactures from China--not the 30 or 40% sometimes suggested. Tariffs would induce decreasing USA’s exports So what? We are never, ever going to fix our trade deficit by increasing exports. This was a fantasy concept started by the Clinton administration that never made any sense. We're not going export enough goods to poor countries to reverse our trade deficit. We're not ever going to export enough goods to poor countries to offset the import of goods into our country's rich consumer market. The belief in that happening is insane--and always was. Instead we should be concentrating on maintaining and regaining the rich consumer market, known as the US consumer market, where people still buy the bulk of US-produced goods, and where another $2 trillion of US goods could be sold, if those goods didn't have to compete with slave-labor produced goods of China, Mexico, Central America, and southeast Asia.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 2, 2011 4:35:00 GMT -6
Unlike tariffs, this simpler market driven proposal grants no policy discretion but the assessed value (within the USA), of our imports could never exceed that of our exports. Giving some Bureaucracy control of what they "asses" the value of every product in the world is just as "market driven" as giving Congress the power of the Tariff; and I remind you the Tariff is in the Constitution, not IC paper scam. You think just by throwing around political buzzwords (partisan jingoism) the people in this forum will listen? "market" "open market" "market driven" "assess value" (instead of dictate value) Some faceless bureaucrat like the Federal Reserve, or elected official, will DICTATE VALUE. DICTATE not ASSESS! And when that happens, some paper pusher will find a way to overvalue exports and undervalue imports to the point where IC's are totally worthless and all you've accomplished was waste people's time and pretend to be fixing the trade deficit like some of these green boondoggles (fake green jobs). Capish? The only solution is Tariffs.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 2, 2011 4:46:42 GMT -6
The only war we should be fighting is a trade war: Bring It On.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 2, 2011 21:59:25 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt & Gray Beard, I understand that you both prefer the highest USA tariffs and prices to USA purchasers of products subject to those tariffs.
If the tariffs are to be sufficient to assure the elimination of USA’s trade deficit of such products, it would effectively force a trade surplus of products subject to the tariffs and almost entirely eliminating such products’ importation into the USA.
I’m a proponent of transferable Import Certificates, (ICs). This proposal doesn’t require high prices to USA purchasers of imported goods but it does assure the complete elimination of USA’s trade deficit for the aggregate total of all products subject to this proposal.
The proposal is applicable to goods but it would exclude the values of specifically listed minerals, (including crude oil) that’s integral to products being assessed.
This elimination of trade deficit is assured regardless of how small of addition to prices paid by USA purchasers of imported products. The sum of these price increases due to ICs are primarily direct benefits to exporters of USA products and that in turn is an indirect but effective subsidy of exported USA products.
Rather than additional federal revenues due to tariffs’ addition to prices paid by USA import purchases, I prefer using price additions due to ICs as leveraged increase of USA exports. Because the price increase to eliminate trade deficits would be drastic, there would be comparatively little total significant government revenues due to tariffs.
Regardless of how small of additions to import prices due to ICs, IC would prevent a trade deficit of the aggregate applicable products. Greater IC open market prices would effectively further increase prices of imported products to USA purchasers and reduce prices of USA goods to foreign purchasers.
ICs rather than tariffs would greater increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage. ICs would be of greater net benefit to our economy.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 3, 2011 1:40:57 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, within your messages you disparage my contending that the proposal for transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) would indirectly but effective subsidize USA’s exports.
You don’t believe it is feasible for our exports to increase to any significant extent.
You have not contradicted my contention the values of IC’s would serve as an indirect subsidy of USA’s exports, but you challenge the effective extent of such a subsidy. You also have not contradicted my contention that tariffs to the extent that they completely eliminate the trade deficit of aggregate goods subject to the tariffs would require drastically high rates of tariffs and those drastic tariffs would significantly reduce USA exports.
Thus there’s a wide divergence between our expected volumes of exports due to abandoning our seeking of pure free trades and the acceptance of a tariff or acceptance of an IC trade policy.
I don’t doubt that choosing a tariff policy would be a net economic improvement but I contend with logical certainty that choosing a general IC rather than a general tariff policy would better improve our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage. It would be of superior economic benefit to our nation.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 3, 2011 3:15:21 GMT -6
You don’t believe it is feasible for our exports to increase to any significant extent. You are exactly right. You are right again. I have not contested that point. IC's certainly would function to subsidize exports. You are more than just being right on this one. You are actually making my point for why we need "drastically" high Tariffs--to raise the after-Tariff price of imports so high that Americans won't buy imports. That's the entire point. That's exactly what I've advocated with Tariffs, and have said as much multiple times. A 30-40% Tariff will do little to reduce imports from China. In contrast, however, a 100-200% Tariff will do a lot to reduce imports. And that's exactly what I'm advocating--100-200% Tariffs on all--I repeat ALL-- imported manufactured goods. I'd take this one step further. Our Tariffs should be high enough to result in NO importation of manufactured goods whatsoever. There most certainly IS a wide divergence. Yours is based on wishful thinking. My is based on facts, numbers, and realism. Your "expected" increase in exports is no different than the magical thinking that started with the Clinton administration, and exists in the minds of dreamers to this day. We're not going to fix our trade deficit by increasing exports. We're only going to fix it by reducing imports. And on that latter point, we fully dis-agree.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 3, 2011 11:52:16 GMT -6
I’m a proponent of transferable Import Certificates, (ICs). This proposal doesn’t require high prices to USA purchasers of imported goods ... ...If it doesn't cost the US based importing company, or foreign exporting country, any money then it will not work. So one would logically conclude that if IC's must work then it would "raise prices".
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 3, 2011 11:56:39 GMT -6
I'd take this one step further. Our Tariffs should be high enough to result in NO importation of manufactured goods whatsoever. Personally I think Tariffs should start at 25% on countries like China, and then every year raise it 5% until it hits like 100%. This would in effect SQUEEZE the traitor American companies who relocated their plants outside the US to exploit foreign slave labor. Every year they would say to themselves, "Maybe Tariffs won't increase this year, so we'll take a hit to our profits and keep exporting at a lower rate or else lose market share." We could squeeze them for 5-10 years, suck those godamn bastards dry of profits. Eventually they will relocate back into the US, the ones that survived.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 3, 2011 20:09:10 GMT -6
I’m a proponent of transferable Import Certificates, (ICs). This proposal doesn’t require high prices to USA purchasers of imported goods ... ...If it doesn't cost the US based importing company, or foreign exporting country, any money then it will not work. So one would logically conclude that if IC's must work then it would "raise prices". FredOrBob, . . . . after 48 messages to this discussion thread you apparently still unaware that corporations and nations do not pay additional expenses due to tariffs or Import Certificates. Those additions to prices are borne by the ultimate purchasers of the imported goods. Unlike tariffs, regardless of how small of additions to imports’ prices, USA’s assessed imports could never exceed our assessed exports. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 3, 2011 20:22:37 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt & Gray beard, we Share a great deal of common ground.
We’re all opposed to USA’s trade deficit of goods. We believe USA purchasers of imported products should bear the costs of limiting or preventing USA’s trade deficit. I contend that an Import Certificate rather than a tariff policy would be to our nation’s best economic advantage. You both believe otherwise.
If we cannot obtain a USA Import Certificate policy, I would then do what I can to support a tariff policy for the USA. If we cannot obtain a tariff policy for the USA, I would hope that voters such as your selves would support an IC policy. Ether policies are preferable to pure free trade.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 4, 2011 2:39:58 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt & Gray beard, we Share a great deal of common ground. We’re all opposed to USA’s trade deficit of goods. We believe USA purchasers of imported products should bear the costs of limiting or preventing USA’s trade deficit. I contend that an Import Certificate rather than a tariff policy would be to our nation’s best economic advantage. You both believe otherwise. If we cannot obtain a USA Import Certificate policy, I would then do what I can to support a tariff policy for the USA. If we cannot obtain a tariff policy for the USA, I would hope that voters such as your selves would support an IC policy. Ether policies are preferable to pure free trade. I agree. If we could not get a high Tariff policy passed, then I would support Import Certificates. Import certificates must have something going for them, if Byron Dorgan and Russ Feingold supported them.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 4, 2011 5:15:00 GMT -6
...If it doesn't cost the US based importing company, or foreign exporting country, any money then it will not work. So one would logically conclude that if IC's must work then it would "raise prices". FredOrBob, . . . . after 48 messages to this discussion thread you apparently still unaware that corporations and nations do not pay additional expenses due to tariffs or Import Certificates. Those additions to prices are borne by the ultimate purchasers of the imported goods. Unlike tariffs, regardless of how small of additions to imports’ prices, USA’s assessed imports could never exceed our assessed exports. Respectfully, Supposn 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 supposn on Mar 4, 2011 5:33:39 GMT -6
Regardless of how small the additions to imports’ prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA’s assessed imports could never exceed our assessed exports.
Domestic production fully contributes to the producing nation’s GDP regardless of products’ ultimate destinations. A global trade deficit is detrimental to a nation’s GDP but individual enterprises that choose to participate in global trade generally benefit from that participation.
In general, the aggregate goals of individual entities and that of our nation coincide but with regard to some practices they diverge. Some acts carried out by individuals or mutually agreeing parties are legally prohibited because they have been deemed to be contrary to our society’s best interests.
Upon this legal concept I would justify federal limiting or preventing our nation’s trade deficit of products.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 4, 2011 20:38:21 GMT -6
Regardless of how small the additions to imports’ prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA’s assessed imports could never exceed our assessed exports. Domestic production fully contributes to the producing nation’s GDP regardless of products’ ultimate destinations. A global trade deficit is detrimental to a nation’s GDP but individual enterprises that choose to participate in global trade generally benefit from that participation. In general, the aggregate goals of individual entities and that of our nation coincide but with regard to some practices they diverge. Some acts carried out by individuals or mutually agreeing parties are legally prohibited because they have been deemed to be contrary to our society’s best interests. Upon this legal concept I would justify federal limiting or preventing our nation’s trade deficit of products. Respectfully, Supposn 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.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 4, 2011 20:57:19 GMT -6
That's one reason 100% inspection of imports appeals to me. The cost to inspect is a real number based on US labor to do the inspecting and ancillaries. That amount, plus overhead, has to be paid by the importers before the goods are released. Yeh, it'll take longer to inspect a container of flash drives than a tanker full of oil. Oh, well.
60 minutes recently gave the story of a whistleblower who cost Pfizer(?) a $700 Million fine for awful sloppiness at their pill factory in Puerto Rico that killed patients getting the wrong or contaminated drugs.
Can you imagine how much of that crap is coming from Communist China? They poison the milk for Chinese children to save a buck. They don't care about anybody else, and even less about Americans.
rdr
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 5, 2011 0:33:16 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? You don’t recognize the illogic of your position? Who do you believe will be assessing goods within a tariff policy? Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 5, 2011 1:31:00 GMT -6
Gray beard, I don’t claim import assessments would alone assure the detection of goods detrimental to our nation’s environment or health but like pouring chicken soup into a dying man, more diligent inspections of imports “Couldn’t hoit”.
A tariff or an Import Certificate, (i.e. IC) policy would be to the advantage of USA product producers and due to our decreased trade deficits there’d be more USA product producers with a vested interest to induce diligent import regulations’ enforcement and fully assess their values.
Such diligence would also better enforce what’s now our less than effective border security. It will increase the difficulty of smuggling drugs or other contraband into our nation.
Under the IC proposal, it would be to our advantage for the same federal agency to assess both imports and exports in the same manner and the values of our assessed imports could never exceed that of our exports.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 5, 2011 1:43:34 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
|
|