America Needs Smart Trade Not Free Trade!

[Indeependent]

Wall Street Journal pro-Cheap labor?
Nah!

 

[Supposn]

Some fool blames Smoot Hawley tariffs for the 1929 Wall Street crash and the Great Depression all started before those tariff acts were passed. The fool goes on to blame those tariffs for the Second World War.


The collapsed German economy was due to the treaties after the First World War which enabled the corporate/military leaders to further incite angry voters and bring Hitler to power. Germany’s political unrest then was worse than what our nation is now experiencing. The voters then accepted what they hoped would be a radical change of government. At that point they didn’t care who or what came to power as long as it greatly differed from what they believed was not then working for the improvement of their nation.
Beware of what we wish for. We got a Christie in NJ, it’s conceivable that we can get a Trump in the White House.


Trade wars are not fought with bombs or bullets. The Import Certificate policies are unilateral and for their nation’s best economic interests. I’m unwilling to compromise or reduce the immediate and future conditions of USA’s employees’ finances and our nation’s economy to please foreign governments unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.


I’m a proponent of agreeing to the “most favored nation” concept. That concept does not prohibit nations from acting in their own best interests but it prohibits a nation to treat other agreeing participants from discriminating among the agreement’s participating foreign nations. That’s all that we should expect from other participating nations and that’s what we should grant to all other participating foreign nations.


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I’m among the proponents for USA adopting the proposed trade policy as described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.


Opponents contend that such a policy to entirely or almost entirely eliminate USA’s chronic trade deficits of goods is unnecessary because, (as they believe), annual trade deficits are not detrimental to their nation’s GDPs. Some of these opponents contend that trade deficits affect upon their nation’s economies are neutral, others contend that trade deficits are actually of net economic benefit to their nations.

But those opponents are unable to logically argue their cases.


Some opponents contend that the Import Certificate policy would significantly reduce competition; shielding enterprises from consequences of their incompetence. Some opponents contend that the policy favors some enterprises to the disadvantage of their competitors. But those opponents are unable to adequately and logically respond when their objections are challenged.


There’s no doubt that to some marginal extent the Import certificate policy does favor USA enterprises.

An interesting characteristic of the policy is its acting as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods at no additional cost to any USA person or enterprise.
It would be of some advantage to any enterprise, (even a subsidiary of foreign enterprise) that produces goods within the USA and competes or aspires to compete with foreign produced goods anywhere in the world.

But that marginal extent of advantage is limited to the global market price rate of Import certificates and only to that extent can it defend USA products from the products of lower wage rate nations.

USA employees cannot support their families on Chinese Wage rate’s purchasing powers and cheaper imported goods do not fully compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits drag upon our GDP, numbers of jobs and our wage’s purchasing powers.


The import certificate policy is substantially driven by markets rather than by the government. If USA purchasers prefer paying the marginal price difference, (i.e. Import Certificates global market price rate) for any particular imported items, market forces will impel those items to be imported into the USA.


If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the Import Certificate policy does not discriminate among industries; it does not discriminate among enterprises within any nation and it does not discriminate among foreign nations.


Respectfully, Supposn

when you limit competition between people states cities countries or industries the quality of their goods and services goes down. We want the opposite. 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Some fool blames Smoot Hawley tariffs for the 1929 Wall Street crash and the Great Depression all started before those tariff acts were passed.

crippling tariffs had been coming. Smoot Hawley was simply the straw that broke the camels back by collapsing world trade by 30% through trade wars, and then causing a depression that led to a world war that killed 60 million. 1+1=2

 

[Toro]

Robert Zoellick wrote an editorial article in the Wall Street Journal published today advocating for free trade and the globalization model. What an utter fool and dangerous ideology he seeks to sell. In selling the globalization model he focuses on if we only take down barriers in foreign countries American exporters will be able to sell more. Fools like Mr. Zoellick never focus what America loses in such deals the manufacturing companies, industries and middle class jobs. He picks and chooses the statistics he wants to cite to defend his position but ignores the critically important big picture statistics. This statistic is that America's trade deficit over a year is around $500 billion dollars, if the American economy was spending that money in the U.S. instead of sending it outside the country that would create a lot of middle class jobs frankly if it was permanently spent here it would permanently solve America's disintegration of the middle class and American dream problem. Zoellick does what the other fools like him do painting their opponents as protectionists. Protectionism isn't a bad word it is elected officials duty it is their duty to protect their country's jobs protectionism doesn't mean isolationism it doesn't mean no trade it all what it means first a country is to take care of providing jobs for their own people and once they do this then they can open their economy up to international trade. If one wants to just taste the greatness of governments erecting prudent trade barriers look at the benefits of just trade tariffs against Chinese steel manufacturers for the US steel industry, it is in heaven. Prudent trade barriers ideally shouldn't be done with tariffs but rather with quotas so as to reduce the problem of U.S. consumers paying more what America really needs is American Universities to create a regulatory model that protects domestic manufacturing industries and protecting their jobs and allowing a prudent portion of these industries open to foreign manufacturers. Essentially, that will give America smart trade which is what America should be after!











steel and



Europe electronics

You support Big Gubmint.

Free trade is freedom and liberty.

If you hate free trade, you hate freedom and liberty.

You are a hypocrite if you come here pretending to be a conservative who loves freedom and liberty but is against free trade.

If you oppose free trade, you are no better than a liberal who wants to redistribute income.

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 15263388, member: 34008]when you limit competition between people states cities countries or industries the quality of their goods and services goes down. We want the opposite. 1+1=2[/QUOTE]

The Import Certificate policy treats all industries and goods produced by any enterprise within any nation in an equitable manner. It does to marginal extent favor its nation’s goods over foreign goods; (that marginal extent is substantially market determined).
The Import Certificate policy entirely or almost entirely eliminates its nation’s trade deficit of goods while increasing the prices of foreign goods to USA purchasers.

All purchasers of imported goods benefit from their cheaper prices but those benefits do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficit’s detriments to our GDP or the financial detriments to USA’s aggregate employees, their dependents and all others to the extent that they're affected by enterprises that are detrimentally impacted when our nation's payrolls are reduced.

Other than increasing prices of imported goods to USA purchasers, the major consequences of USA adopting an Import Certificate policy would be to better promote our GDP and numbers of jobs which in turn would be of some benefit to our jobs’ purchasing powers. To the marginal extent that it favors USA goods, it reduces the advantages of low wage nation’s products and acts as a price subsidy for USA’s exported goods.

The import Certificate policy is substantially market driven.
There are some fools that prefer we cling to the concept of absolutely pure market driven trade policy for our international trade rather than better consider USA’s economy and working families; but they are unable to explain why they do so.

2x2=4

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 15263388, member: 34008]when you limit competition between people states cities countries or industries the quality of their goods and services goes down. We want the opposite. 1+1=2

The Import Certificate policy treats all industries and goods produced by any enterprise within any nation in an equitable manner. It does to marginal extent favor its nation’s goods over foreign goods; (that marginal extent is substantially market determined).
The Import Certificate policy entirely or almost entirely eliminates its nation’s trade deficit of goods while increasing the prices of foreign goods to USA purchasers.

All purchasers of imported goods benefit from their cheaper prices but those benefits do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficit’s detriments to our GDP or the financial detriments to USA’s aggregate employees, their dependents and all others to the extent that they're affected by enterprises that are detrimentally impacted when our nation's payrolls are reduced.

Other than increasing prices of imported goods to USA purchasers, the major consequences of USA adopting an Import Certificate policy would be to better promote our GDP and numbers of jobs which in turn would be of some benefit to our jobs’ purchasing powers. To the marginal extent that it favors USA goods, it reduces the advantages of low wage nation’s products and acts as a price subsidy for USA’s exported goods.

The import Certificate policy is substantially market driven.
There are some fools that prefer we cling to the concept of absolutely pure market driven trade policy for our international trade rather than better consider USA’s economy and working families; but they are unable to explain why they do so.

2x2=4

Respectfully, Supposn [/QUOTE]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

consider USA’s economy and working families; but they are unable to explain why they do so.

protecting and crippling American industry, trade wars, and real wars are not good for working families. This is how the Great Depression and WW2 started and why the entire world is moving to free trade.

 

[Supposn]

There are some fools that believe the 1929 Wall Street crash, the “great” depression and the Second World War were due to the protection of crippled American industry.

Those fools advocate further dragging upon our GDP due to our chronic annual trade deficits of goods. They certainly don’t want to reduce low wage nation’s price advantages. That would unjustifiably increase USA’s annual GDPs, number of jobs and our economic wellbeing.

Those fools are unable to explain the logic of what they advocate.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are some fools that believe the 1929 Wall Street crash, the “great” depression and the Second World War were due to the protection of crippled American industry.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff and the Great Depression | Foundation for ...
https://fee.org/.../the-smoot-hawley-tariff-and-the...
Foundation for Economic Education
In 1930 a large majority of economists believed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would exacerbate the U.S. recession into a worldwide depression. On May 5 of that year 1,028 members of the American Economic Association released a signed statement that vigorously opposed the act. The protest included five basic points.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. They certainly don’t want to reduce low wage nation’s price advantages.

sure we do!!!!! We want to eliminate the corporate tax( highest in world) to reduce the incentive for American companies to move to low wage low tax countries.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those fools advocate further dragging upon our GDP due to our chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

wrong again!!! Would love to eliminate deficit by eliminating liberal taxes, unions, and deficits and by ending the liberal war on America's families schools and religions. NOw do you understand?

 

[Supposn]

The 1929 Wall Street crash is widely accepted as when USA’s and then the remainder of the world recognized our global economic depression became apparent reality.
Only illogical fools could believe the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 in June could be the cause of the great depression which was already apparent in 1929.



I’m a proponent of a transferable Import Certificate policy which is a substantially market driven global trade policy. There are some similarities between that and a tariff policy but they also have different attributes which produce significantly different consequences.

Arguments to critique an Import Certificate policy by attacking tariff policy in many cases lose all pretense of logic. There are fools that do not believe that or simply believe that we will not notice their disregarding of this concept to make their case.



Certainly the global depression affected Germany’s economy. The two most significant economic factors detrimental to Germany’s post World War One’s economy the post war peace agreements placing heavy financial burdens upon their economy and the global depression as it affected Germany itself.

Those were the greatest economic factors contributing to Hitler’s and the Nazis’ party rise to political power.



Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Only illogical fools could believe the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 in June could be the cause of the great depression which was already apparent in 1929.

dear, world trade collapsed by 30% thanks to a protectionist environment that began in 1927 and came to fruition with Smoot Hawley. Now do you understand.

Protecting and crippling our industries led to depression, trade wars, and then world war. We don't want to do that again. It pays to think.

 

[Supposn]

I’m not a proponent of tariff policies and all of them I’m aware of are entirely driven by their governments; I am a proponent of the unilateral policy for international trade as presently described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. That policy is substantially driven by markets rather than the policy's government.

Due to some significant differences between the two policies, their consequential effects significantly differ.


Many fools are incapable of arguing any cases logical case. There are opponents of Import Certificates that understand the concept of Import Certificates and do argue their cases logically. But unfortunately many fools are incapable of arguing any cases logically. The preponderance of this thread’s responders opposing Import Certificates, post “bumper sticker” phrases with no logically supporting arguments and even those phrases are much less applicable or inapplicable to Import Certificates.


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

One particular poster to this thread now realizes contending the 1930 Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was the cause of the 1929 Wall Street crash, the depression that followed it and thus causing World War Two, were overstated his “bumper sticker” phrases he provides in opposition to tariffs.

His phrases (for which he provides no logical support) are much less applicable, (almost entirely inapplicable) to a discussion of Import Certificates rather than to tariffs.
Due to his phrases lacking logical arguments, they insufficiently support his opposition to even just tariffs.

He’s now backed down from his position that FDR administration’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was the entire fault. He now contends that Smoot-Hawley was only in addition to Coolidge administration’s “protectionist environment that began in 1927 and came to fruition with Smoot Hawley” that were the causes of the 1929 Wall Street crash, the depression that followed it and thus causing World War Two.


There’s somewhat of a contradiction with his contentions. Woodrow Wilson’s administrations reduced tariffs but World War One did occur and yet he believes USA’s tariffs were a significant cause of World War two?

[I would suppose that most creditable historians attribute World War One’s peace agreements placing heavy financial burdens upon Germany and the global depression’s effect upon Germany itself as the two most major economic factors contributing to Hitler’s and the Nazis’ party rise to political power].

Why is this fool beginning his chain of blame with the Coolidge administration? Tariffs have been a mainstay of our nation’s government since Alexander Hamilton and our government’s first administration. World War Two was George Washington’s fault?


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One particular poster to this thread now realizes contending the 1930 Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was the cause of the 1929 Wall Street crash, the depression that followed it and thus causing World War Two, were overstated his “bumper sticker” phrases he provides in opposition to tariffs.

His phrases (for which he provides no logical support) are much less applicable, (almost entirely inapplicable) to a discussion of Import Certificates rather than to tariffs.
Due to his phrases lacking logical arguments, they insufficiently support his opposition to even just tariffs.

He’s now backed down from his position that FDR administration’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was the entire fault. He now contends that Smoot-Hawley was only in addition to Coolidge administration’s “protectionist environment that began in 1927 and came to fruition with Smoot Hawley” that were the causes of the 1929 Wall Street crash, the depression that followed it and thus causing World War Two.


There’s somewhat of a contradiction with his contentions. Woodrow Wilson’s administrations reduced tariffs but World War One did occur and yet he believes USA’s tariffs were a significant cause of World War two?

[I would suppose that most creditable historians attribute World War One’s peace agreements placing heavy financial burdens upon Germany and the global depression’s effect upon Germany itself as the two most major economic factors contributing to Hitler’s and the Nazis’ party rise to political power].

Why is this fool beginning his chain of blame with the Coolidge administration? Tariffs have been a mainstay of our nation’s government since Alexander Hamilton and our government’s first administration. World War Two was George Washington’s fault?


Respectfully, Supposn

If there is one thing economists on both sides can agree on its free trade. Even Obama supports not protecting and crippling our industries. The consensus began to form after protectionism caused the Great Depression , trade wars, and then WW2.


The logic is simple: if a person or country has to make everything he/it consumes he/it is very poor while the more trade expands the richer the person and country get.
A child can follow this logic.

 

[Supposn]

Competition can be reduced by favoring or disfavoring particular enterprises or products. The trade policy as described within Wikipedia’s “Import certificates” article does not materially reduce competition.

If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the Import Certificate policy does not discriminate among industries; it does not discriminate among enterprises within any nation and it does not discriminate among foreign nations.

I’m opposed to USA compromising or reducing our immediate and future conditions of USA’s employees’ finances and our nation’s economy to please foreign governments unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 15314030, member: 34008] ... The logic is simple: if a person or country has to make everything he/it consumes he/it is very poor while the more trade expands the richer the person and country get.
A child can follow this logic.[/QUOTE]

Tariff’s consequential proportional reductions of their nation’s annual trade deficits are dependent upon their government’s determined tariff rates paid by importers of goods entering the USA. Those government determined rates are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods. The increase of prices to USA purchasers of foreign goods is almost entirely government determined.

There is no assurance that tariffs could significantly reduce the proportions of their nation’s annual trade deficits unless those tariff rates are drastically high; there’s less assurance that tariffs could almost entirely eliminate their nation’s annual trade deficits unless their rate was sufficient to hinder almost all of their nation’s global trade, and that would be insufficient to assure complete elimination of their nation’s annual trade deficits.

I’m a proponent of the policy as described within Wikipedia’s Import Certificates” article.
I don’t doubt that Edward Baiamonte could, (if he cared to) understand the unilateral policy for conducting the nation’s global trade but it better suits his purpose to deliberately remain or pretend to remain ignorant with regard to Import Certificates.

[Transferable Import Certificates are issued by the U.S. Treasury to exporters of USA goods, with face values equal to the assessed values of the shipment of USA goods that have departed from the USA. USA Customs service only assesses the goods of exporters that requested their shipment be assessed prior to shipping and agreed to pay the federal fee rates based upon that assessment.

Importers of goods into the USA are required to surrender transferable Import Certificates prior to their goods being permitted to enter the USA. The face values of the surrendered certificates must cover the imported goods assessed values and surrendered certificates are cancelled.]

Certificate price rates to exporters of USA goods are set and annually monitored and updated by the government to defray the trade policy’s entire direct expenses to federal government. It’s supposed that rate’s insufficient to significantly reduce USA’s annual trade deficits. But due to its character, the Import certificate policy will certainly almost eliminate almost eliminate USA’s entire annual trade deficits of goods regardless of whatever is the government’s federal fee rate initially paid by exporters of USA’s exported goods or the global market rates passed on to USA purchasers of Imported goods.

The global certificate markets will not sustain a global Import Certificate rate that exceeds what’s necessary to entirely eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods.

The indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods is equal to the differences between the federal fee rates initially paid by USA exporters of goods and the additional global market certificate rates paid by importers of goods entering the USA.

Any goods that can legally be imported into the USA will be imported if there’s effective demand for that specific product.

If you have confidence in independent participants’ behaviors within open competitive markets, you should share my confidence in the expected behavior of a global transferable Import Certificates market; on the other hand, if you contend that global trade does not operate as Adam Smith described open competitive markets, you have even more good reason to support USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy for our global trade practices.

The opponent of Import Certificate policy grant lip-services to open competitive markets but they do not share my confidence in such markets’ behaviors.
Is it his child-like inability to comprehend what should be obvious to him or is Edward Baiamonte a socialist pretending to be a libertarian?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The opponent of Import Certificate policy grant lip-services to open competitive markets

dear, an open competitive market is one without tariffs to protect and cripple our industries, without trade wars and depression, and without real wars like WW2 more likely.