A Republican trade deficit solution?

[danielpalos]

I want better for my grandchildren’s generation.

certainly crippling our industries will not help but making them more competitive will. Do you understand?

deny and disparage them, steak and lobster privileges, until they become more competitive.

 

[Supposn]

The Derp,
, referring to this thread’s initial post:

I have my doubts as to the enforceability of a destination based tax, (DBT) regulations drafted in the manner that Paul Ryan and other Republicans seemed to be advocating. If that’s the case, their proposal for BBT is of no worth.

IF DBT’S are enforceable, it would certainly reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and services. But I do not know to what extent it could do so, in comparison to the trade policy described by Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates”, (IC’s) article.

Import certificate, (IC) policy is not applicable to services or to the extent that the values of specifically listed minerals are integral within globally traded goods. It would almost or entirely eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits due to all other goods. Unlike DBT, IC requires the federal government’s ability to estimate the values of individual shipments passing through our borders. This is DBT’s greatest advantage over IC’s.

The reducing and the manner of reducing USA’s chronic annual trade deficits determine the extent of consequentially increasing USA’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

I do not know in comparison, to what extent the tax or the policy would eliminate USA’s total trade deficits of goods and services, or consequentially to what extent they would affect our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

“Destination Based” tax, (DBT) policy denies taxable income reductions to enterprises for their GROSS costs of the products they import. This denial of tax reduction increases prices of imports that are passed onto their USA purchasers and would certainly reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and services. Due to a denying a tax reducing expense it would (to I suppose a small extent), increase corporate tax revenue or permit revenue neutral reduction of corporate tax rates.

Within the Import Certificate policy, exporters of USA goods choosing to request their goods to be assessed, pay federal fees based upon the adjusted assessed values of their export shipments. (The fees defray the entire direct federal direct costs due to this policy) and increase prices of imports passed onto their USA purchasers. Other than the federal assessment fees, the additions to prices passed onto USA purchasers of imports, are entirely determined by markets’ behaviors. These additional markets’ determined price modifications indirectly but effectively serve as price subsidies of USA exports and they do so at no additional cost to anyone else.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

IF DBT’S are enforceable, it would certainly reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and services.

assuming it didn't start 1000's of continuous trade wars that led to poverty and real war!!

 

[danielpalos]

In 2016, the total U.S. trade deficit was $502 billion. That's because it imported $2.712 trillion of goods and services while exporting $2.209 trillion. The deficit is higher than in 2013 when it was $478 billion. That's because the dollar strengthened 25 percent in 2014 and 2015.

But the deficit is less than the record $762 billion in 2006. The decrease since then means U.S. exports are growing faster than imports.


That's good for U.S. businesses and job growth. (Source: "U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services," U.S. Census Bureau, February 7, 2017.)--https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276

Laissez-fair in Trade, right wingers; Hooverville, All the Way!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reducing and the manner of reducing USA’s chronic annual trade deficits determine the extent of consequentially increasing USA’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Obviously best way to help GDP and jobs is to make stuff people want to buy!! Imagine from Stone Age forward if one country used liberal scams to stimulate its economy and another used better products. Which country would prevail!! 1+1=2