Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs

[Supposn]

... When you make sweeping claims, "annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP",
people who are interested in the topic would like you to discuss apparent holes in your claim.

I guess you can admit your sweeping claim was in error, show that the apparent hole isn't really a hole, or run away. Again.

ToddsterPatriot, I began the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/retaliation-within-global-trade.679521/#post-19846368 to openly declare my error.

Upon further consideration, I determined that although Import Certificates can, and often would likely behave as an indirect and effective subsidy for their nation's exports, the policy is not less (than any other trade policy is), vulnerable to mischief from various entities motivated to undermine the nation's international trade;
(i.e. trade policy is, as free-trade or any other trade policy is, vulnerable retaliation that's contrary to their nation's trade policy).

On the other hand, it's a fact rather than an opinion that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS, (more than otherwise) net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus, to their nation's numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... When you make sweeping claims, "annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP",
people who are interested in the topic would like you to discuss apparent holes in your claim.

I guess you can admit your sweeping claim was in error, show that the apparent hole isn't really a hole, or run away. Again.

ToddsterPatriot, I began the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/retaliation-within-global-trade.679521/#post-19846368 to openly declare my error.

Upon further consideration, I determined that although Import Certificates can, and often would likely behave as an indirect and effective subsidy for their nation's exports, the policy is not less (than any other trade policy is), vulnerable to mischief from various entities motivated to undermine the nation's international trade;
(i.e. trade policy is, as free-trade or any other trade policy is, vulnerable retaliation that's contrary to their nation's trade policy).

On the other hand, it's a fact rather than an opinion that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS, (more than otherwise) net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus, to their nation's numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

On the other hand, it's a fact rather than an opinion that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS, (more than otherwise) net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus, to their nation's numbers of jobs.

All you need to do is provide proof of this claim.
The best place to start is by showing that absent $132 billion in oil imports last year, US GDP and jobs would be higher.

 

[Supposn]

On the other hand, it's a fact rather than an opinion that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS, (more than otherwise) net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus, to their nation's numbers of jobs.

All you need to do is provide proof of this claim.
The best place to start is by showing that absent $132 billion in oil imports last year, US GDP and jobs would be higher.

ToddsterPatriot, it's a fact explicitly incorporated within the expenditure formula for calculating GDP. I explained it to you within this thread's post #11.
I responded to your nonsensical comment or question regarding oil imports within this thread's post #39.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On the other hand, it's a fact rather than an opinion that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS, (more than otherwise) net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus, to their nation's numbers of jobs.

All you need to do is provide proof of this claim.
The best place to start is by showing that absent $132 billion in oil imports last year, US GDP and jobs would be higher.

ToddsterPatriot, it's a fact explicitly incorporated within the expenditure formula for calculating GDP. I explained it to you within this thread's post #11.
I responded to your nonsensical comment or question regarding oil imports within this thread's post #39.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, it's a fact explicitly incorporated within the expenditure formula for calculating GDP.

You're wrong, no matter how many times you repeat your sweeping claim.
Let me try to walk you through it.........

Every country in the world decides to stop selling us oil.
According to your expenditure formula, our GDP would immediately increase.

Do you think that would happen?
No negative impacts if we immediately lost 8 million barrels of daily crude imports?

What happened the last time we suffered an oil embargo?
Did GDP spike? Lots of new jobs created?

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, it's a fact explicitly incorporated within the expenditure formula for calculating GDP.

ToddsterPatriot, no fact is undeniable; but denying a fact does not impinge upon its truth; annual trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

You're wrong, no matter how many times you repeat your sweeping claim.
Let me try to walk you through it.........

Every country in the world decides to stop selling us oil.

According to your expenditure formula, our GDP would immediately increase.
Do you think that would happen?
No negative impacts if we immediately lost 8 million barrels of daily crude imports?

What happened the last time we suffered an oil embargo?
Did GDP spike? Lots of new jobs created?

ToddsterPatriot, is that the point of your petroleum comment or question?

You're concerned about the Arab nations' again acting in unison and upholding the global market prices of crude and refined petroleum products? Didn't that occur years prior to President Trump's piece-meal, unpredictable and erratic attempts to slam tariffs upon various specific products while granting tariff exceptions to various individual nations?

Are you arguing that we should adopt the Wikipedia Import Certificate described proposal because free trade will not protect us or our allies from trade reprisals contra to our global trade? That's not the reason to adopt the proposal, but it certainly is not a logical reason for opposing USA's adoption of Import Certificate trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Regarding "We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year", I live in an Iowa town that gets its power from a coal fired plant in Omaha, Neb. Now imagine if, as a town, we put up so much "local" solar and wind, that the town no longer sent money to Omaha, but kept the money in the town. From here I will return your question, "How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

"How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

Well, considering the fact that the wind and solar will never pay for themselves, I'd say your local GDP would drop.

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

Well, that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want, eh comrade?

It is sad when I have to explain to someone that "questions do not make an argument!"

As in:

1. How much lost economic activity last year. . . ?

2. The foreign company . . . did they eat the money?

3. How long do you think that will take?

4. How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Finally at the end, we get the comment "baloney" in response to "without a government there is no economy." If you go to Investopedia.com and find the article "What If There Were No Government?" you find this as the "immediate" response to no government. The article goes on to explain the long term impact.

(Quote)

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets. U.S. federal debt is the largest single investment instrument in the market, and the disappearance of a federal government would have everyone scrambling to figure out who, if anybody, would honor that debt. Moreover, since each and every U.S. dollar is essentially a debt instrument backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government", what would that be worth (and also, of the billions of dollars of reserves held around the world in U.S. dollars) with no U.S. government?

Suffice it to say, the equity markets would also go absolutely haywire. So much of what is taken for granted in business - including taxes, regulations and the smooth operation of interstate and international trade - is facilitated or overseen by the federal government, and nobody would have any immediate answers as how that would continue. Likewise, what would happen to corporate profits if the federal government vanished as a customer? In such an environment, gold and silver would likely skyrocket, as speculators reassured themselves that precious metals would always be worth something in trade.

Perhaps contrary to expectation, there would not necessarily be full-scale bedlam and anarchy. Police are funded and administered at state and municipal levels, and while the National Guard is technically part of the U.S. Army and Air Force, it is still operates at the state level and could be called upon by governors to maintain order.

(End quote)

You will notice that the only thing that stops "full-scale bedlam and anarchy" is "local government." So again "without government there is no economy!!!!!!!"

In the other post, we get this comment "that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want." Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits. If quality were an issue the term "planned obsolescence" would not be a part of capitalism.

Plus, the price has nothing to do with you! Price is about the competition that may, for a time, exist. However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition, and once that is accomplished, it is all about "monopoly pricing." You know; the kind of monopoly pricing found in America today!

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Well, if you can't find the answers to the questions, you'll never see the errors in your claims.

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets.

Yup, don't doubt it for a second.
But the claim wasn't, "with no federal government, there would be chaos in the financial markets"

The claim was, " without a government there is no economy"
You don't need an article to see the error in that claim, you just need a little knowledge of history.
Or a dictionary.

economy: The state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money.

economy | Definition of economy in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Now, do you believe if the federal government was wiped out by an asteroid that there would be no production and consumption? That no one would have goods and services to offer? That there would be no money supply?

Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits.

Really? General Motors is free to make crappy cars at inflated prices because all that matters is profit?
I'm not free to refuse to buy their product and buy a better, more reliable, cheaper import with my own money?
Are you going to force me to buy the crappy GM product because, " one person's spending is another person's income"?

I always thought capitalism was about meeting customer demands. Companies that can do that, profitably, succeed and continue. Companies that cannot do that profitably, fail and disappear.

However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition,

I'm the guy in favor of competition, freely making choices with my own money.
You're the guy complaining that I'm buying from someone besides GM.

About "if you can't find the answers to the questions", it is my job to find the answers to MY questions. It is not my job to find the answers to YOUR questions. That is your job!

Plus, a discussion in which one side only asks questions is a stupid game. It is a stupid game in which one side can ask questions ad infinitum, contributes no facts or information, and pretends to stand on some intellectual base. In short, a discussion with such people is a waste of time.

PS: It is amazing that you have been on this board as long as your profile suggests, and you have not learned the common courtesy of avoiding the use of the "question ad infinitum" horse crap!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, it's a fact explicitly incorporated within the expenditure formula for calculating GDP.

ToddsterPatriot, no fact is undeniable; but denying a fact does not impinge upon its truth; annual trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

You're wrong, no matter how many times you repeat your sweeping claim.
Let me try to walk you through it.........

Every country in the world decides to stop selling us oil.

According to your expenditure formula, our GDP would immediately increase.
Do you think that would happen?
No negative impacts if we immediately lost 8 million barrels of daily crude imports?

What happened the last time we suffered an oil embargo?
Did GDP spike? Lots of new jobs created?

ToddsterPatriot, is that the point of your petroleum comment or question?

You're concerned about the Arab nations' again acting in unison and upholding the global market prices of crude and refined petroleum products? Didn't that occur years prior to President Trump's piece-meal, unpredictable and erratic attempts to slam tariffs upon various specific products while granting tariff exceptions to various individual nations?

Are you arguing that we should adopt the Wikipedia Import Certificate described proposal because free trade will not protect us or our allies from trade reprisals contra to our global trade? That's not the reason to adopt the proposal, but it certainly is not a logical reason for opposing USA's adoption of Import Certificate trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, is that the point of your petroleum comment or question?

MY point is that your sweeping claim, "annual trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation's GDP", is wrong, the opposite of right.

You're concerned about the Arab nations' again acting in unison and upholding the global market prices of crude and refined petroleum products?

Nope. Not even a little bit.

Are you arguing that we should adopt the Wikipedia Import Certificate described proposal because free trade will not protect us or our allies from trade reprisals contra to our global trade?

Nope. I'm arguing that your sweeping claim, "annual trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation's GDP", is wrong, the opposite of right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Regarding "We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year", I live in an Iowa town that gets its power from a coal fired plant in Omaha, Neb. Now imagine if, as a town, we put up so much "local" solar and wind, that the town no longer sent money to Omaha, but kept the money in the town. From here I will return your question, "How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

"How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

Well, considering the fact that the wind and solar will never pay for themselves, I'd say your local GDP would drop.

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

Well, that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want, eh comrade?

It is sad when I have to explain to someone that "questions do not make an argument!"

As in:

1. How much lost economic activity last year. . . ?

2. The foreign company . . . did they eat the money?

3. How long do you think that will take?

4. How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Finally at the end, we get the comment "baloney" in response to "without a government there is no economy." If you go to Investopedia.com and find the article "What If There Were No Government?" you find this as the "immediate" response to no government. The article goes on to explain the long term impact.

(Quote)

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets. U.S. federal debt is the largest single investment instrument in the market, and the disappearance of a federal government would have everyone scrambling to figure out who, if anybody, would honor that debt. Moreover, since each and every U.S. dollar is essentially a debt instrument backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government", what would that be worth (and also, of the billions of dollars of reserves held around the world in U.S. dollars) with no U.S. government?

Suffice it to say, the equity markets would also go absolutely haywire. So much of what is taken for granted in business - including taxes, regulations and the smooth operation of interstate and international trade - is facilitated or overseen by the federal government, and nobody would have any immediate answers as how that would continue. Likewise, what would happen to corporate profits if the federal government vanished as a customer? In such an environment, gold and silver would likely skyrocket, as speculators reassured themselves that precious metals would always be worth something in trade.

Perhaps contrary to expectation, there would not necessarily be full-scale bedlam and anarchy. Police are funded and administered at state and municipal levels, and while the National Guard is technically part of the U.S. Army and Air Force, it is still operates at the state level and could be called upon by governors to maintain order.

(End quote)

You will notice that the only thing that stops "full-scale bedlam and anarchy" is "local government." So again "without government there is no economy!!!!!!!"

In the other post, we get this comment "that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want." Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits. If quality were an issue the term "planned obsolescence" would not be a part of capitalism.

Plus, the price has nothing to do with you! Price is about the competition that may, for a time, exist. However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition, and once that is accomplished, it is all about "monopoly pricing." You know; the kind of monopoly pricing found in America today!

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Well, if you can't find the answers to the questions, you'll never see the errors in your claims.

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets.

Yup, don't doubt it for a second.
But the claim wasn't, "with no federal government, there would be chaos in the financial markets"

The claim was, " without a government there is no economy"
You don't need an article to see the error in that claim, you just need a little knowledge of history.
Or a dictionary.

economy: The state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money.

economy | Definition of economy in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Now, do you believe if the federal government was wiped out by an asteroid that there would be no production and consumption? That no one would have goods and services to offer? That there would be no money supply?

Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits.

Really? General Motors is free to make crappy cars at inflated prices because all that matters is profit?
I'm not free to refuse to buy their product and buy a better, more reliable, cheaper import with my own money?
Are you going to force me to buy the crappy GM product because, " one person's spending is another person's income"?

I always thought capitalism was about meeting customer demands. Companies that can do that, profitably, succeed and continue. Companies that cannot do that profitably, fail and disappear.

However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition,

I'm the guy in favor of competition, freely making choices with my own money.
You're the guy complaining that I'm buying from someone besides GM.

About "if you can't find the answers to the questions", it is my job to find the answers to MY questions. It is not my job to find the answers to YOUR questions. That is your job!

Plus, a discussion in which one side only asks questions is a stupid game. It is a stupid game in which one side can ask questions ad infinitum, contributes no facts or information, and pretends to stand on some intellectual base. In short, a discussion with such people is a waste of time.

PS: It is amazing that you have been on this board as long as your profile suggests, and you have not learned the common courtesy of avoiding the use of the "question ad infinitum" horse crap!

It is not my job to find the answers to YOUR questions. That is your job!

I know the answers.
If you don't and you're too stupid to look, color me unsurprised.

 

[Syriusly]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

I'm among the advocates for USA adopting the policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article because it would significantly reduce our nation's chronic annual trade deficits in a manner that would increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs and their wages' purchasing powers more than otherwise.
Why would I want to speculate upon the theoretical extent of detriment that might occur due to your proposal that I consider would be net detrimental to our nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

Respectfully, everytime you quote Wikipedia as if it is a real original source- you reveal yourself to be an idiot.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Regarding "We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year", I live in an Iowa town that gets its power from a coal fired plant in Omaha, Neb. Now imagine if, as a town, we put up so much "local" solar and wind, that the town no longer sent money to Omaha, but kept the money in the town. From here I will return your question, "How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

If you "know the answers, tell us what you know rather than asking questions. A discussion is about both sides adding information.

"How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

Well, considering the fact that the wind and solar will never pay for themselves, I'd say your local GDP would drop.

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

Well, that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want, eh comrade?

It is sad when I have to explain to someone that "questions do not make an argument!"

As in:

1. How much lost economic activity last year. . . ?

2. The foreign company . . . did they eat the money?

3. How long do you think that will take?

4. How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Finally at the end, we get the comment "baloney" in response to "without a government there is no economy." If you go to Investopedia.com and find the article "What If There Were No Government?" you find this as the "immediate" response to no government. The article goes on to explain the long term impact.

(Quote)

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets. U.S. federal debt is the largest single investment instrument in the market, and the disappearance of a federal government would have everyone scrambling to figure out who, if anybody, would honor that debt. Moreover, since each and every U.S. dollar is essentially a debt instrument backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government", what would that be worth (and also, of the billions of dollars of reserves held around the world in U.S. dollars) with no U.S. government?

Suffice it to say, the equity markets would also go absolutely haywire. So much of what is taken for granted in business - including taxes, regulations and the smooth operation of interstate and international trade - is facilitated or overseen by the federal government, and nobody would have any immediate answers as how that would continue. Likewise, what would happen to corporate profits if the federal government vanished as a customer? In such an environment, gold and silver would likely skyrocket, as speculators reassured themselves that precious metals would always be worth something in trade.

Perhaps contrary to expectation, there would not necessarily be full-scale bedlam and anarchy. Police are funded and administered at state and municipal levels, and while the National Guard is technically part of the U.S. Army and Air Force, it is still operates at the state level and could be called upon by governors to maintain order.

(End quote)

You will notice that the only thing that stops "full-scale bedlam and anarchy" is "local government." So again "without government there is no economy!!!!!!!"

In the other post, we get this comment "that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want." Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits. If quality were an issue the term "planned obsolescence" would not be a part of capitalism.

Plus, the price has nothing to do with you! Price is about the competition that may, for a time, exist. However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition, and once that is accomplished, it is all about "monopoly pricing." You know; the kind of monopoly pricing found in America today!

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Well, if you can't find the answers to the questions, you'll never see the errors in your claims.

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets.

Yup, don't doubt it for a second.
But the claim wasn't, "with no federal government, there would be chaos in the financial markets"

The claim was, " without a government there is no economy"
You don't need an article to see the error in that claim, you just need a little knowledge of history.
Or a dictionary.

economy: The state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money.

economy | Definition of economy in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Now, do you believe if the federal government was wiped out by an asteroid that there would be no production and consumption? That no one would have goods and services to offer? That there would be no money supply?

Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits.

Really? General Motors is free to make crappy cars at inflated prices because all that matters is profit?
I'm not free to refuse to buy their product and buy a better, more reliable, cheaper import with my own money?
Are you going to force me to buy the crappy GM product because, " one person's spending is another person's income"?

I always thought capitalism was about meeting customer demands. Companies that can do that, profitably, succeed and continue. Companies that cannot do that profitably, fail and disappear.

However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition,

I'm the guy in favor of competition, freely making choices with my own money.
You're the guy complaining that I'm buying from someone besides GM.

About "if you can't find the answers to the questions", it is my job to find the answers to MY questions. It is not my job to find the answers to YOUR questions. That is your job!

Plus, a discussion in which one side only asks questions is a stupid game. It is a stupid game in which one side can ask questions ad infinitum, contributes no facts or information, and pretends to stand on some intellectual base. In short, a discussion with such people is a waste of time.

PS: It is amazing that you have been on this board as long as your profile suggests, and you have not learned the common courtesy of avoiding the use of the "question ad infinitum" horse crap!

It is not my job to find the answers to YOUR questions. That is your job!

I know the answers.
If you don't and you're too stupid to look, color me unsurprised.

 

[Supposn]

You keep citing Wikipedia- as if that means something.
Anyone can write anything on Wikipedia.
What you have failed to provide is an actual citation of some evidence that this would work.

Syriusly, I cite where the concept is more fully and well explained. I do not claim it's an authoritative site, But that it's a logical concept that may, (or may not) appeal to people that can read and have some confidence in their own logical judgment. ...

Respectfully, everytime you quote Wikipedia as if it is a real original source- you reveal yourself to be an idiot.

Syriusly, contributors to Wikipedia do cite what you describe as real original sources. Why do you really object to Wikipedia?

Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies.

Your post reflects poorly upon your intelligence and the manner of your post is less than civil.

Remaining respectfully, Supposn

 

[Syriusly]

You keep citing Wikipedia- as if that means something.
Anyone can write anything on Wikipedia.
What you have failed to provide is an actual citation of some evidence that this would work.

Syriusly, I cite where the concept is more fully and well explained. I do not claim it's an authoritative site, But that it's a logical concept that may, (or may not) appeal to people that can read and have some confidence in their own logical judgment. ...

Respectfully, everytime you quote Wikipedia as if it is a real original source- you reveal yourself to be an idiot.

Syriusly, contributors to Wikipedia do cite what you describe as real original sources. Why do you really object to Wikipedia?

Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies.

Your post reflects poorly upon your intelligence and the manner of your post is less than civil.

Remaining respectfully, Supposn

Contributors to Wikipedia can write whatever they chose to.

There is a reason why citing Wikipedia is NEVER an acceptable substitute for citing an original source document. You just keep parroting 'Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article as if that means something- it just means you either don't understand Wikipedia, or you don't understand the subject matter.

 

[Supposn]

Excerpted from cite Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary :

cite verb /T/ (mention)
* to mention something as proof for a theory or as a reason why something has happened, or to speak or write words taken from a written work:
He cited a study of the devices as proof that the company knew they were dangerous.
Scientists cite this experiment as their main support for this theory.

* To cite someone else’s words when speaking or writing is to use them:
If you cite too many writers, readers will wonder if you have any ideas of your own.

* In law, a person or organization which is cited is named in a legal action:
The mine operator was cited with 33 violations of federal safety standards.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Syriusly, rather than depending upon my own knowledge of the English language or upon others regard for my credibility, I just cited what some may regard an authoritative source.

When I mentioned Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article, I was referring to what I consider to be a well--written explanation of a specific version of the “Import Certificate” concept; the "improved" version described in the article is not the only version of the Import Certificate concept.

I did not state or imply that it's an authoritative explanation; I did not quote Wikipedia, but I did respond to your questioning my reference to Wikipedia;

Syriusly, I cite where the concept is more fully and well explained. I do not claim it's an authoritative site, But that it's a logical concept that may, (or may not) appeal to people that can read and have some confidence in their own logical judgment. ...

Contributors to Wikipedia can write whatever they chose to.

There is a reason why citing Wikipedia is NEVER an acceptable substitute for citing an original source document. You just keep parroting 'Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article as if that means something- it just means you either don't understand Wikipedia, or you don't understand the subject matter.​

​

Syriusly, contributors to Wikipedia do cite what you describe as real original sources. Why do you really object to Wikipedia?

Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies. ...

Over the years I've spent time and effort advocating USA's adopting the Import Certificate trade policy. Within my posts, along with my arguments and opinions, and I do mention the Wikipedia article, “Import Certificates”.
[Cambridge.Org is a website of Cambridge University Press, which many consider as well-regarded publishers. But you may and need not agree with them). Regardless, I cite one of the examples they provided within their explanations and examples of the word “cite”; “If you cite too many writers, readers will wonder if you have any ideas of your own”.]

Syriusly,I again comment:

Syriusly, … Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies. ...

I again state your posts reflects poorly upon your intelligence.​

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excerpted from cite Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary :

cite verb /T/ (mention)
* to mention something as proof for a theory or as a reason why something has happened, or to speak or write words taken from a written work:
He cited a study of the devices as proof that the company knew they were dangerous.
Scientists cite this experiment as their main support for this theory.

* To cite someone else’s words when speaking or writing is to use them:
If you cite too many writers, readers will wonder if you have any ideas of your own.

* In law, a person or organization which is cited is named in a legal action:
The mine operator was cited with 33 violations of federal safety standards.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Syriusly, rather than depending upon my own knowledge of the English language or upon others regard for my credibility, I just cited what some may regard an authoritative source.

When I mentioned Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article, I was referring to what I consider to be a well--written explanation of a specific version of the “Import Certificate” concept; the "improved" version described in the article is not the only version of the Import Certificate concept.

I did not state or imply that it's an authoritative explanation; I did not quote Wikipedia, but I did respond to your questioning my reference to Wikipedia;

Syriusly, I cite where the concept is more fully and well explained. I do not claim it's an authoritative site, But that it's a logical concept that may, (or may not) appeal to people that can read and have some confidence in their own logical judgment. ...

Contributors to Wikipedia can write whatever they chose to.

There is a reason why citing Wikipedia is NEVER an acceptable substitute for citing an original source document. You just keep parroting 'Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article as if that means something- it just means you either don't understand Wikipedia, or you don't understand the subject matter.​

Syriusly, contributors to Wikipedia do cite what you describe as real original sources. Why do you really object to Wikipedia?

Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies. ...

Over the years I've spent time and effort advocating USA's adopting the Import Certificate trade policy. Within my posts, along with my arguments and opinions, and I do mention the Wikipedia article, “Import Certificates”.
[Cambridge.Org is a website of Cambridge University Press, which many consider as well-regarded publishers. But you may and need not agree with them). Regardless, I cite one of the examples they provided within their explanations and examples of the word “cite”; “If you cite too many writers, readers will wonder if you have any ideas of your own”.]

Syriusly,I again comment:

Syriusly, … Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies. ...

I again state your posts reflects poorly upon your intelligence.​

Respectfully, Supposn

Over the years I've spent time and effort advocating USA's adopting the Import Certificate trade policy.

And you still won't defend the flaw in your GDP claim.

 

[Syriusly]

Excerpted from cite Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary :

cite verb /T/ (mention)
* to mention something as proof for a theory or as a reason why something has happened, or to speak or write words taken from a written work:
He cited a study of the devices as proof that the company knew they were dangerous.
Scientists cite this experiment as their main support for this theory.

* To cite someone else’s words when speaking or writing is to use them:
If you cite too many writers, readers will wonder if you have any ideas of your own.

* In law, a person or organization which is cited is named in a legal action:
The mine operator was cited with 33 violations of federal safety standards.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Syriusly, rather than depending upon my own knowledge of the English language or upon others regard for my credibility, I just cited what some may regard an authoritative source.

When I mentioned Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article, I was referring to what I consider to be a well--written explanation of a specific version of the “Import Certificate” concept; the "improved" version described in the article is not the only version of the Import Certificate concept.

I did not state or imply that it's an authoritative explanation; I did not quote Wikipedia, but I did respond to your questioning my reference to Wikipedia;

Syriusly, I cite where the concept is more fully and well explained. I do not claim it's an authoritative site, But that it's a logical concept that may, (or may not) appeal to people that can read and have some confidence in their own logical judgment. ...

Contributors to Wikipedia can write whatever they chose to.

There is a reason why citing Wikipedia is NEVER an acceptable substitute for citing an original source document. You just keep parroting 'Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article as if that means something- it just means you either don't understand Wikipedia, or you don't understand the subject matter.​

Syriusly, contributors to Wikipedia do cite what you describe as real original sources. Why do you really object to Wikipedia?

Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies. ...

Over the years I've spent time and effort advocating USA's adopting the Import Certificate trade policy. Within my posts, along with my arguments and opinions, and I do mention the Wikipedia article, “Import Certificates”.
[Cambridge.Org is a website of Cambridge University Press, which many consider as well-regarded publishers. But you may and need not agree with them). Regardless, I cite one of the examples they provided within their explanations and examples of the word “cite”; “If you cite too many writers, readers will wonder if you have any ideas of your own”.]]

You cite Wikipedia as if Wikipedia is an authority- which it is not.
You haven't cited any other resource. Nor have you mentioned Warren Buffet who according to your citation is not only the originator of the idea- but also the articles cited by Wikipedia refer to Buffet 4 times.

I have tremendous respect for Warren Buffet, which makes me very curious why you keep referring to Wikipedia- rather than Buffet.

 

[Supposn]

Over the years I've spent time and effort advocating USA's adopting the Import Certificate trade policy.

And you still won't defend the flaw in your GDP claim.

ToddsterPatriot, I believe I've well responded, (possibly too well responded) to each of your criticisms. Apparently “You can't handle the truth”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs:

I'm among the proponents of the Wikipedia's described version of an “Import Certificates”.

The policy's entire net costs are passed on to USA purchasers and users of imported goods which similarly can be done with a tariff policy.

Unlike tariffs, REGARDLESS of how small of price additions to USA purchasers of imported goods, this policy will extremely significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our domestic production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Similarly to tariffs, this policies minimum sustainable net costs, (which are passed on to USA purchasers and users of imports) are at least the federal direct expenses due to the trade policy.

Unlike tariffs, this unilateral trade policy is substantially more sensitive to market conditions rather than government determinations and is substantially IMMUNE from retaliation.

Federal direct expenditures due to the policy are passed on as federal fee-rates to exporters of USA goods that choose, (not required to pay) in order to receive valuable transferable Import Certificates with face values equal to the assessed values of their shipped USA goods.

Importers of goods are required to surrender the certificates with face values sufficient to cover the assessed values of their goods entering the USA.

Surrendered certificates are canceled. The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Eventually, both tariff and Import Certificate policies entire net costs are paid as increased prices of imported goods to USA purchasers and users of imported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

balance of trade is just one factor to consider regarding our whole economy.

why shouldn't structural inefficiencies in our economy be solved first, to then see where we stand regarding trade?

 

[Supposn]

You cite Wikipedia as if Wikipedia is an authority- which it is not.
You haven't cited any other resource. Nor have you mentioned Warren Buffet who according to your citation is not only the originator of the idea- but also the articles cited by Wikipedia refer to Buffet 4 times.

I have tremendous respect for Warren Buffet, which makes me very curious why you keep referring to Wikipedia- rather than Buffet.​

... When I mentioned Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article, I was referring to what I consider to be a well--written explanation of a specific version of the “Import Certificate” concept; the "improved" version described in the article is not the only version of the Import Certificate concept.

Syriusly, I cite where the concept is more fully and well explained. I do not claim it's an authoritative site, But that it's a logical concept that may, (or may not) appeal to people that can read and have some confidence in their own logical judgment. ...

Syriusly, contributors to Wikipedia do cite what you describe as real original sources. Why do you really object to Wikipedia?

Regarding the concept of Wikipedia's “Import certificates” article, your posts do not present any logical contrary arguments or offer any logically developed explanation of an alternate solution to the problems addressed by the concept. You do not offer us anything that might lead us to further insight regarding foreign trade policies. ...

Syriusly, I referred to an explanation of the proposal that I prefer, the ”improved” version described in Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Warren Buffett and Carol Loomis did not do put to much flesh on the bones of their excellent concept. I don't know if they are, or are not amiable to Wikipedia's “improved” version of the proposal. I certainly would be interested in their response. There are criticisms of the Import Certificate version that was proposed to the U.S. Senate in 2006. I'd be interested to read of any responses from Byron Dorgan and Russell Feingold.

I'm satisfied with the explanation of the improved version of the concept and the citings within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. Posting and responding to comments regarding the proposal is what I do.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

balance of trade is just one factor to consider regarding our whole economy.

why shouldn't structural inefficiencies in our economy be solved first, to then see where we stand regarding trade?

DanielPalos, a recent post within another group:
JBander, I'm among the proponents for three economic proposals in particular:
(1) Each Labor Day, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate should be cost-of-living-adjusted, (COLA'd) by pegging it to a federal cost-price-index number. This method has been successfully retaining Social Security retirement benefits' purchasing powers.
(2) Each Thanksgiving day until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power, the rate should be increased by an additional 15%. The nation would have benefited if the minimum's purchasing power had been further increased since its peak value, rather than the significant decline we have experienced.
(3) Enact the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. It would significantly reduce USA's trade deficit of goods in a manner that would increase our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Beyond the fact that trade deficits always reduce the GDP, I'm among those contending that although the extent of trade deficits' detriment to domestic production cannot be determined, we know that it exceeds the amount of trade deficit itself.

These three proposals do not materially affect our annual federal budgets; Although, there are initial start-up costs necessary to enacting the self-funding Import Certificate policy.
They all contribute to increasing our median-wage which is critical to our middle income earning segment of our population.
The FMW rate effects upon jobs' wages are inversely related to the difference between the minimum's and the job's rate. Those earning the least, proportionally benefit more; those who earn more, proportionally benefit less, but all USA employees benefit from the federal minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over the years I've spent time and effort advocating USA's adopting the Import Certificate trade policy.

And you still won't defend the flaw in your GDP claim.

ToddsterPatriot, I believe I've well responded, (possibly too well responded) to each of your criticisms. Apparently “You can't handle the truth”.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, I believe I've well responded, (possibly too well responded) to each of your criticisms.

You haven't shown me that a lower trade deficit, caused by an immediate cessation of oil imports, would increase US jobs or US GDP.