|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:11:08 GMT -6
The USA has laws and regulations prohibiting foreign nation’s “dumping” their products into the USA. That's right, we got laws preventing stuff like this, heck we even have the Tariff written in stone in the Constitution. Creating a new shell game, NEW LAWS, won't help. They would simply be ignored or bypassed.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:12:22 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? Think of the federal government; whenever there's a deficit anywhere, they just print more paper.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:16:41 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 Oh goody, export subsidies. Why should Americans have to be taxed, so some foreign national can buy corn at a cheaper price? Hey, why don't we just open our wallets and just give them our money, "Here I laboured to produce this, and here's a little extra money for it. Why don't we just give you goods for free, and call it foreign aid."
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:18:11 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? You mean like hoarding IC's, until the price of oil goes up real high, then selling? Sounds like a plan to me.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:20:02 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt: The assessment methods on Tariffs are via price/value at the point of entry. Period. No, There is no "Assessing" with Tariffs. The importer pays a percentage of what they actually payed in real money to import it.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 9:29:12 GMT -6
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. Oh my god, what a nightmare. So the exporter/importer will have to call up the "Ministry of Assessing" to get a fabricated value of what they are export/importing equivalence to IC's. It's not written down in a book, or in a computer somewhere, you actually have to call up the "Ministry of Assessing". What if the Ministry of Assessing is run by a Free Trader? What is to stop the Ministry of Assessing from Assessing Exports at a higher value to Assessing Imports? Scenario: An American exporter only exports 1 billion in REAL MONEY goods, and gets 10 IC, cause the Ministry of Assessing told him so. An American importer wants to import 10 billion in REAL MONEY goods, and the Ministry of Assessing tells the importer they only need 1 IC. See how the shell game works. _________________________ Take the godamn Ministry of Assessing out of your proposition. Make IC's equal to the REAL VALUE of goods. C'mon. That's how Tariffs are, just a godamn percentage of the REAL VALUE of goods.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 8, 2011 12:45:27 GMT -6
Take the godamn Ministry of Assessing out of your proposition. Make IC's equal to the REAL VALUE of goods. C'mon. That's how Tariffs are, just a godamn percentage of the REAL VALUE of goods. Or just fix the price of the IC at exactly the same dollar value as the exports sold. In other words, don't allow any "free-market" valuation of ICs at all. The exporter can sell them at a fixed price only, determined by the value of exports. This way any market-price variation of the price of ICs would be eliminated. And here's another twist that could be used with ICs, to make them more beneficial to US trade. Make the import value of the IC to an importer less than the amount of goods exported. For example, if a producer exported $100 million-worth of goods, give him an import certificate good for only $70 million-worth of imports. (but don't let him sell it for less than $100 million). This would actually help reduce our trade deficit, instead of just preventing it from getting worse. This would act functionally as a Tariff on imports--though the Tariff would be going to private American producers, not the Government. I'd still rather have Tariffs. But implementing these 2 policies would at least improve upon an Import Certificate program.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 8, 2011 18:15:12 GMT -6
Take the godamn Ministry of Assessing out of your proposition. Make IC's equal to the REAL VALUE of goods. C'mon. That's how Tariffs are, just a godamn percentage of the REAL VALUE of goods. Or just fix the price of the IC at exactly the same dollar value as the exports sold. In other words, don't allow any "free-market" valuation of ICs at all. The exporter can sell them at a fixed price only, determined by the value of exports. This way any market-price variation of the price of ICs would be eliminated. And here's another twist that could be used with ICs, to make them more beneficial to US trade. Make the import value of the IC to an importer less than the amount of goods exported. For example, if a producer exported $100 million-worth of goods, give him an import certificate good for only $70 million-worth of imports. (but don't let him sell it for less than $100 million). This would actually help reduce our trade deficit, instead of just preventing it from getting worse. This would act functionally as a Tariff on imports--though the Tariff would be going to private American producers, not the Government. I'd still rather have Tariffs. But implementing these 2 policies would at least improve upon an Import Certificate program. I'm not a big fan of subsidizing exports in any form. Why should foreigners get to buy stuff at a lower price, at our expense?
|
|
|
Post by nailbender on Mar 8, 2011 18:52:05 GMT -6
I've been following this for awhile and it doesn't make any sense. Collecting Tariffs would be a revenue stream for the Fed. Gov. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Fed. Gov. need this revenue stream a lot more than exporting companies that are already making money, why do they need or deserve a subsidy? Let's face it, Big business/Banks are in complete control of the Fed. Gov. They are basically Mega-Monopolies and continue to eliminate or absorb their competition. BIG = BAD Isn't it obvious this format isn't working out so well? Now you want to provide them with a subsidy, which will make them only more powerful and concentrate capital further? I would go so far to guess that some of these exporters would actually use their new revenue stream to build more manufacturing facilities in FOREIGN NATIONS. Who are the major US exporters that would benefit from this IC scam? Here is some data I found from 2008. www.importexportbook.com/what-does-the-usa-import-and-export/ American Trade Statistics as provided by the US Census Bureau for 2008 show that last year US imports totaled $2.104 trillion in products from other countries and exports from the USA totaled $1.287 trillion in products to the rest of the world. In 2008, imports to USA from other counties rose 7.5% and exports from the USA rose 12.1%. The top ten categories of exports from USA to other countries in dollar value were: 1. Civilian aircraft … $74 billion, up 1.3% from 2007 (5.7% of total US exports) 2. Semiconductors … $50.6 billion, up 0.3% (3.9%) 3. Passenger cars … $49.6 billion, up 13.3% (3.9%) 4. Medicinal, dental and pharmaceutical preparations … $40.4 billion, up 15% (3.1%) 5. Other vehicle parts and accessories … $39.9 billion, down 10.1% (3.1%) 6. Other industrial machinery … $38.1 billion, down 0.6% (3%) 7. Fuel oil … $34.9 billion, up 124.1% (2.7%) 8. Organic chemicals … $33.4 billion, up 5.5% (2.6%) 9. Telecommunications equipment … $32.9 billion, up 4.6% (2.6%) 10. Plastic materials … $31.6 billion, up 8.7% (2.5%). The fastest growing exports from USA in 2008 by sector were: 1. Fuel oil … US$34.9 billion, up 124.1% from 2007 2. Metallurgical grade coal … $5.8 billion, up 97.8% 3. Chemical fertilizers … $10.8 billion, up 71% 4. Other coal and fuels … $2.8 billion, up 66.6% 5. Non-farm tractors and parts … $3.4 billion, up 62.2% 6. Rice … $2.3 billion, up 57.1% 7. Oilseeds and food oils … $3.2 billion, up 56.8% 8. Natural gas liquids … $3.3 billion, up 54.7% 9. Natural gas … $4.9 billion, up 54.6% 10. Unmanufactured goods from agricultural industry … $3.3 billion, up 53.8%. Read more: www.importexportbook.com/what-does-the-usa-import-and-export/#ixzz1G3dp8IveWith the continuation of current trends, I think ALL but natural resources and food should be put on the endangered list. The companies that are exporting, do not have their sites set on diversifying and increasing domestic production. They are looking to maintain or increase their bonus pool as their export levels continue to decline as more work and production is shipped off shore. Isn't this really what's/who's behind this scheme?
|
|
|
Post by nailbender on Mar 8, 2011 19:30:07 GMT -6
I think 2 big advantages of Tariffs over ICs is that imported goods would still be available at a higher price, there would be no "real" shortages while domestic production ramped up and the US wouldn't be held hostage by the Big Exporters, they would be able to determine what goods were imported. They would basically be in complete control of Imports and if they didn't want to "sell" their IC' (hoarding don't ya know), they could create shortages and do all sorts of manipulative shenanagins.
IC's are a scheme and should not even be considered.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Mar 8, 2011 20:20:55 GMT -6
I think t he tariff would be the most direct and easiest to manage
An idea I heard today that I think has some merit. Waive all sales tax on US made goods
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 8, 2011 23:31:31 GMT -6
Good catch Nailbender.
Looking at those natural resource export numbers is scary. To me it looks like we're already a bananaland republic being exploited by foreigners.
BTW I'd love to see a breakdown of ownership of those companies doing the exporting. Want to bet they are foreign owned or foreigners have a serious stake in said companies?
This is not good. No wonder they never show a chart like this on TV.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 8, 2011 23:43:53 GMT -6
Cotton didn't make the list at only $5 Billion export value. Take away the $3 Billion subsidies, and it's not such a hot deal for the US.
GB
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 9, 2011 0:24:03 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, we agree that a trade deficit is always detrimental and a surplus is always beneficial to a nation’s economy.
What we prefer should be balanced against the cost of achieving our preferences. Decisions should consider cost/benefit analysis; what’s the probable net gain or expense and risks of achieving or failing to achieve alternative goals by alternative methods? Extreme right wingers are certain that (at least in net aggregate) the “market’s decision” is always the optimum result. I consider myself as among those less extreme and my position on political spectrums differs dependent upon the issues in question. I qualify that and many other statements by replacing the word “always” with the word “generally”.
Extreme left wingers are convinced that commercial interests, (i.e. the market’s decisions) are innately contrary to populists' best interests.
In many, if not most cases I find that populists and commercial interests, (particularly other than short term interests) actually more or less coincide. Dependent upon the issues involved, our differences vary over a broad range. What’s unfortunate is that too often disagreement is less due to differing goals, priorities or methods but rather to the concept of it’s us against them.
I do not advocate compromise simply to arrive at agreement without full regard for the consequences of the compromise.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 9, 2011 0:31:46 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, both tariffs and Import Certificates, (i.e. ICs) would reduce USA’s trade deficit of the aggregate goods subject to the tariffs or ICs, they’ll increase the prices of such imported goods to USA purchasers and those price additions will fund the trade policies’ total expenses.
Federal net revenues due to tariffs contribute to the federal general budget. Within a tariff system the additions to prices of such imports sold to USA purchasers are directly related to tariff’s fixed rates. Tariffs can only assure elimination of such trade deficits if they are drastically high. Tariffs can be expected to reduce exports more than otherwise and drastically high tariffs would significantly reduce our volumes of exports.
Within a transferable Import Certificate system, (i.e. IC system), a trade deficit of the aggregate goods subject to ICs can never occur. The additions to prices of imports subject to ICs and sold to USA purchasers are directly related to the open market prices of ICs. ICs provide no net federal revenue but exporters’ net revenues due to ICs would be an indirect but effective leveraged subsidy of USA exports. An IC policy would increase the sum of USA’s aggregate imports plus exports more than otherwise. I suppose you agree that ICs market prices will not exceed a tariff rate that would similarly assure elimination of trade deficits. Furthermore IC’s market prices would generally be much lower than such a tariff rate.
An IC policy would and a tariff policy of extremely high tariffs could eliminate the aggregate trade deficit of imported goods subject to the policies. It’s conceivable that there could be a trade surplus of such goods under an IC policy but you and I agree that’s not likely to occur until there’s wage parity between USA; and most of the world’s remaining populations. You advocate a USA trade surplus under a high tariff policy in the belief that it would, (further than an IC policy) increase USA’s GDP and median wage.
I believe that ICs rather than tariffs would better increase our GDP and median wage. The trade surplus you’re chasing is a greater portion of a smaller pie. Due to high tariffs rather than ICs, each USA wage earner would receive a smaller slice of the pie. You don’t believe that an IC’s subsidy could increase exports. Between the increase due to ICs subsidy and the reduction due to high tariffs there’d be a significant difference of export volumes. Domestic production for export is no less advantageous than production for domestic markets. The EU market alone is now approaching USA’s populations and monetary values. Under an IC policy foreign nations could less afford not to purchase USA goods. I have doubts that tariffs on almost all general goods that are sufficiently high to eliminate our trade deficit of those goods would be economically superior to lesser tariff rates. Transforming USA into a commercially isolationist nation would certainly not be to our political and technological advantage.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 9, 2011 1:23:30 GMT -6
Tariffs can only assure elimination of such trade deficits if they are drastically high. Tariffs can be expected to reduce exports more than otherwise and drastically high tariffs would significantly reduce our volumes of exports. Why do you say that? Why would Tariffs reduce exports? I believe that ICs rather than tariffs would better increase our GDP and median wage. The trade surplus you’re chasing is a greater portion of a smaller pie. Due to high tariffs rather than ICs, each USA wage earner would receive a smaller slice of the pie. No. I don't follow your reasoning on that at all. The main "pie" is the American consumer market, which is 20% of world GDP. The slice of the pie that we're trying to regain is the $2 trillion of non-oil imports into the US--imports that could be replaced with American production--a potential increase of 28.5 million jobs at $70K/job. I don't see how American workers would be receiving a smaller slice of the pie with Tariffs.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 9, 2011 2:01:38 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, both tariffs and Import Certificates, (i.e. ICs) would reduce USA’s trade deficit of the aggregate goods subject to the tariffs or ICs, they’ll increase the prices of such imported goods to USA purchasers and those price additions will fund the trade policies’ total expenses.
Federal net revenues due to tariffs contribute to the federal general budget. Within a tariff system the additions to prices of such imports sold to USA purchasers are directly related to tariff’s fixed rates. Tariffs can only assure elimination of such trade deficits if they are drastically high. Tariffs can be expected to reduce exports more than otherwise and drastically high tariffs would significantly reduce our volumes of exports.
Within a transferable Import Certificate system, (i.e. IC system), a trade deficit of the aggregate goods subject to ICs can never occur. The additions to prices of imports subject to ICs and sold to USA purchasers are directly related to the open market prices of ICs. ICs provide no net federal revenue but exporters’ net revenues due to ICs would be an indirect but effective leveraged subsidy of USA exports. An IC policy would increase the sum of USA’s aggregate imports plus exports more than otherwise. I suppose you agree that ICs market prices will not exceed a tariff rate that would similarly assure elimination of trade deficits. Furthermore IC’s market prices would generally be much lower than such a tariff rate.
An IC policy would and a tariff policy of extremely high tariffs could eliminate the aggregate trade deficit of imported goods subject to the policies. It’s conceivable that there could be a trade surplus of such goods under an IC policy but you and I agree that’s not likely to occur until there’s wage parity between USA; and most of the world’s remaining populations. You advocate a USA trade surplus under a high tariff policy in the belief that it would, (further than an IC policy) increase USA’s GDP and median wage.
I believe that ICs rather than tariffs would better increase our GDP and median wage. The trade surplus you’re chasing is a greater portion of a smaller pie. Due to high tariffs rather than ICs, each USA wage earner would receive a smaller slice of the pie. You don’t believe that an IC’s subsidy could increase exports. Between the increase due to ICs subsidy and the reduction due to high tariffs there’d be a significant difference of export volumes. Domestic production for export is no less advantageous than production for domestic markets. The EU market alone is now approaching USA’s populations and monetary values. Under an IC policy foreign nations could less afford not to purchase USA goods. I have doubts that tariffs on almost all general goods that are sufficiently high to eliminate our trade deficit of those goods would be economically superior to lesser tariff rates. Transforming USA into a commercially isolationist nation would certainly not be to our political and technological advantage.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 9, 2011 6:34:21 GMT -6
"Transforming USA into a commercially isolationist nation would certainly not be to our political and technological advantage."
That is a stupid statement. We are importing $6 of goods for every dollar we export. Isolation would make it one for one, and we are large enough with enough resources we need only a few items, like bananas, coffee, oil and rubber.
The biggest consumer of oil in the world is the US military. We should cut that by 90%.
GB
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 9, 2011 10:10:43 GMT -6
Tariffs can only assure elimination of such trade deficits if they are drastically high. Tariffs can be expected to reduce exports more than otherwise and drastically high tariffs would significantly reduce our volumes of exports. I believe that ICs rather than tariffs would better increase our GDP and median wage. The trade surplus you’re chasing is a greater portion of a smaller pie. Due to high tariffs rather than ICs, each USA wage earner would receive a smaller slice of the pie. ............................... No. I don't follow your reasoning on that at all. The main "pie" is the American consumer market, which is 20% of world GDP. The slice of the pie that we're trying to regain is the $2 trillion of non-oil imports into the US--imports that could be replaced with American production--a potential increase of 28.5 million jobs at $70K/job. I don't see how American workers would be receiving a smaller slice of the pie with Tariffs. Unlawflcombatnt, you wrote of your preference for tariff rates sufficient to at least match the extremely significant reduction of USA’s trade deficits that ICs would create. (Tariff Rates could be increased to additionally over take our trade deficit of scarce or rare minerals and we’d be more likely to have a trade surplus). The tariff rates you prefer would more or less transform the USA into a commercially isolationist nation. Due to such high tariffs, (unlike an IC system) the sum of our aggregate imports plus exports would certainly be reduced and I SUSPECT, (I do not claim to know), that our GDP would be somewhat less than otherwise. That would result in USA wage earners sharing lesser than otherwise pieces of a lesser than otherwise “economic pie”. I have to go now. I'll answer your other question when I return home. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 9, 2011 12:01:07 GMT -6
Supposn wrote:
"Transforming USA into a commercially isolationist nation would certainly not be to our political and technological advantage."
Utter nonsense given the economic and social damage that "free trade" has caused our country. Prior to dropping the trade barriers we did pretty good.
Furthermore technologically we don't need foreign imports, never have. Our science and industrial base can do very well without Chinese thieves ripping off our IP and selling us the low quality copy cat goods.
Politically free trade has turned our Congress into a bunch of traitors that are selling out our country and people at the behest of corporate interests.
In terms of exports we don't need to do much exporting since most of it is raw materials that we need from natural gas, oil and other essentials.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:03:45 GMT -6
The tariff rates you prefer would more or less transform the USA into a commercially isolationist nation. Most likely Tariffs would create a large trading bloc of free nations, like during the Cold War, and that is a very good thing to isolate the US from foreign Oligarchies. Either that or risk breaking the United States up into 50 separate isolated entities in the upcoming Civil War, turning the North American continent into Medieval Europe of tiny warring states.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:09:52 GMT -6
Tariffs can only assure elimination of such trade deficits if they are drastically high. Not necessarily. If there is foreign slave labor being used, the profit margin is large (why the rich get richer). If a moderate Tariff is in place then the price will remain the same for US consumers while the profit margin is reduced in order for that foreign slave labor company to maintain the market here. There is a large grey area where revenue generating Tariffs meets Protectionist Tariffs, where the profit margin narrows, where some of the product could be produced in the US and some that can be produced overseas of the same product.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:11:41 GMT -6
Within a transferable Import Certificate system, (i.e. IC system), a trade deficit of the aggregate goods subject to ICs can never occur. Only if you take the Ministry of Assessing out of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:12:47 GMT -6
Tariffs can only assure elimination of such trade deficits if they are drastically high. Tariffs can be expected to reduce exports more than otherwise and drastically high tariffs would significantly reduce our volumes of exports. Why do you say that? Why would Tariffs reduce exports? I believe that ICs rather than tariffs would better increase our GDP and median wage. The trade surplus you’re chasing is a greater portion of a smaller pie. Due to high tariffs rather than ICs, each USA wage earner would receive a smaller slice of the pie. No. I don't follow your reasoning on that at all. The main "pie" is the American consumer market, which is 20% of world GDP. The slice of the pie that we're trying to regain is the $2 trillion of non-oil imports into the US--imports that could be replaced with American production--a potential increase of 28.5 million jobs at $70K/job. I don't see how American workers would be receiving a smaller slice of the pie with Tariffs. At heart supposn is a free trader.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:16:59 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, we agree that a trade deficit is always detrimental and a surplus is always beneficial to a nation’s economy. Not necessarily. The US was a major oil exporter 50 years ago, we drained ourselves of a vital national resource, that was not beneficial. China is the world's greatest exporter, but their citizens still remain slaves to a bastard Capitalist-Communist Oligarchy, that is not beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:19:18 GMT -6
The fastest growing exports from USA in 2008 by sector were: 1. Fuel oil … US$34.9 billion, up 124.1% from 2007 2. Metallurgical grade coal … $5.8 billion, up 97.8% 3. Chemical fertilizers … $10.8 billion, up 71% 4. Other coal and fuels … $2.8 billion, up 66.6% 5. Non-farm tractors and parts … $3.4 billion, up 62.2% 6. Rice … $2.3 billion, up 57.1% 7. Oilseeds and food oils … $3.2 billion, up 56.8% 8. Natural gas liquids … $3.3 billion, up 54.7% 9. Natural gas … $4.9 billion, up 54.6% 10. Unmanufactured goods from agricultural industry … $3.3 billion, up 53.8%. Good god what a nightmare. Look at the fastest growing exports, RAW MATERIAL AND AGRICULTURE. This is a sign of a 2nd or 3rd world economy: exporting raw materials and unfinished goods.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:20:12 GMT -6
I think 2 big advantages of Tariffs over ICs is that imported goods would still be available at a higher price, there would be no "real" shortages while domestic production ramped up and the US wouldn't be held hostage by the Big Exporters, they would be able to determine what goods were imported. They would basically be in complete control of Imports and if they didn't want to "sell" their IC' (hoarding don't ya know), they could create shortages and do all sorts of manipulative shenanagins. IC's are a scheme and should not even be considered. Yes that would definitely happen, hoarding IC's to artificially inflate the price.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:20:57 GMT -6
I think t he tariff would be the most direct and easiest to manage An idea I heard today that I think has some merit. Waive all sales tax on US made goods Except we got this big-ass national debt problem too.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 9, 2011 15:32:19 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, we agree that a trade deficit is always detrimental and a surplus is always beneficial to a nation’s economy. What we prefer should be balanced against the cost of achieving our preferences. Decisions should consider cost/benefit analysis; what’s the probable net gain or expense and risks of achieving or failing to achieve alternative goals by alternative methods? Extreme right wingers are certain that (at least in net aggregate) the “market’s decision” is always the optimum result. I consider myself as among those less extreme and my position on political spectrums differs dependent upon the issues in question. I qualify that and many other statements by replacing the word “always” with the word “generally”. Extreme left wingers are convinced that commercial interests, (i.e. the market’s decisions) are innately contrary to populists' best interests. In many, if not most cases I find that populists and commercial interests, (particularly other than short term interests) actually more or less coincide. Dependent upon the issues involved, our differences vary over a broad range. What’s unfortunate is that too often disagreement is less due to differing goals, priorities or methods but rather to the concept of it’s us against them. I do not advocate compromise simply to arrive at agreement without full regard for the consequences of the compromise. Respectfully, Supposn The IC proposal is packed full of left and right political cliches. Right: Free Market, Market Driven, Market, Warren Buffet, entrepreneur, Cap and Trade, fair trade, self-funding Left: Byron Dorgan (D), Russell Feingold (D), Cap and Trade, fair trade Remove those political cliches and you've got a blank piece of paper with nothing of substance inside, only political posturing. It's also a load of crap: -"Free Market". There's nothing "free market" about forcing companies to use a 2nd form of currency just to make a transaction. There's nothing "Free Market" about government "Assessing" the value of every good on the planet when a value already exists, and that value is what a customer pays to import it. -"Self Funding". That's another load of crap. The US Treasury, which coins money, has an annual budget of 20 billion dollars. IC's will act as a currency and will need to have the same conterfeit protections as a dollar. How much does money does the Secret Service use to combat conterfeit?
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 10, 2011 0:40:11 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, any attempts to reduce USA’s trade reduction will be opposed by many if not most other nations’ and international enterprises. Many USA enterprises will be among those opposed to the IC concept.
Opposition is to be expected even from some enterprises that would be unaffected by the ICs or entities that would derive net gains from them. Generally all changes of anything are opposed by some entities.
I have absolute confidence in the logic of the IC proposal but it's true that such a proposal has never been attempted by any nation. Similarly prior to the establishment of the United States there had never been a nation with a government that was a democratic republic.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|