Import Certificates Vs. Tariffs

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, we all benefit from cheaper imported goods but they do not compensate for USA’s chronic annual trade deficits net detriments to our annual gross domestic productions and our numbers of jobs; these in turn are net financially detrimental to USA’s aggregate employees and their dependents.

Trade deficits have no intrinsic bearing on GDP or employment. You can have a negative trade deficit and still be producing, since trade is conducted with the goal of making money, and not losing it.

Onyx, reconsider you post. You’ve contended there’s no relationship between the net volume of a nation’s annual global trade balance of goods and their annual volume of domestic production of goods? There’s no relationship between a nation’s annual GDP and their numbers of jobs?

People and enterprises do what they perceive to be in their own best interests.

Due to USA’s current trade policy, there are too many cases of USA purchasers (correctly) perceive that purchasing imported good is to their best interests, and foreign purchasers (correctly) perceive their refraining from purchasing USA exported goods are to their best interests.

The consequences of USA seeking to practice “pure” free trade is net detrimental to USA’s GDP and that’s particularly reflected in less than otherwise numbers of USA jobs. This is net detrimental to USA’s economy.
Changing the laws and regulations governing our global trade practices would affect what’s to the best interests of both USA and foreign purchasers. That’s the purpose of the Import Certificate policy.


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excerpted from this discussion thread’s 10:21 PM post of December 6, 2016: USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods, and more than otherwise increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage. Rather than being a net source of tax revenue, the policy behaves as an indirect but effective subsidy of prices to foreign purchasers of USA exported goods

Exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade

I know the damn GDP formula.

ToddsterPatriot, are you contending that increasing USA’s GDP by eliminating our chronic trade deficits of goods would not increase USA jobs more than otherwise?

That would depend. We could have a massive recession which would reduce the trade deficit.
Would that be a good idea?
If the only input into GDP (and jobs) was the level of our trade deficit/surplus, you'd have a point.
Simplistic thinking like that tends not to work when implemented in the real world. ...

ToddsterPatriot, no one has contended that a reduction of USA’s trade deficit without regard for the manner with which it’s reduced, would ALWAYS increase USA’s GDP and numbers of jobs.

I’ve stated (in this post, in others within other threads and often within other internet groups), “USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods, and more than otherwise increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage”.

[I suppose that there are other methods to accomplish the same thing but I’m among the proponents of this Import Certificate proposal because I believe it to be the superior method to accomplish its purpose].

In the case of a nation that’s experiencing annual trade deficits trade deficits while also enjoying “full employment” there’s little that an Import Certificate policy could do to further improve its economy. I don’t believe USA has ever had an annual trade deficit and full employment within the same year. I suppose it may never had been the case for any nation.

The statement regarding increases of GDP, numbers of jobs and their median wage is qualified by the term “more than otherwise”; (otherwise being if the USA continues to seek “pure” free trade).
That means that due to USA adopting this Import Certificate policy, (regardless of the nation’s economic condition during any year), our GDP and numbers of jobs would be greater that year due to this trade policy we had adopted.

Your comments regarding the nation’s economic condition is some actual or hypothetical year is not applicable to this discussion. Other than at times of “full employment”, the Import Certificate policy would be of net economic benefit to our nation in all years.

Respectfully, Supposn

I’ve stated (in this post, in others within other threads and often within other internet groups), “USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods,

And lower our standard of living.

our GDP and numbers of jobs would be greater that year due to this trade policy we had adopted.

I don't think you can prove that.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, are you contending that increasing USA’s GDP by eliminating our chronic trade deficits of goods would not increase USA jobs more than otherwise?

I don't think you can prove that.

ToddsterPatriot, regardless of your opinion, for any given amount of a nation’s GDP, that GDP amount is inversely affected by their nation’s balance of trade; (i.e. due to the mathematical formula that determines GDP, the nation’s GDP is reduced by the amount of the nation’s trade deficit). That’s not an opinion but due to the definition of GDP and the determining formula, it’s a fact.

Are you contending that reduced GDP is not similarly reflected by a reduced number of their nation’s jobs? If that’s your opinion, it’s contrary to the overwhelming majority, (if not effectively all) of the world’s creditable economists’ opinions.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, are you contending that increasing USA’s GDP by eliminating our chronic trade deficits of goods would not increase USA jobs more than otherwise?

I don't think you can prove that.

ToddsterPatriot, regardless of your opinion, for any given amount of a nation’s GDP, that GDP amount is inversely affected by their nation’s balance of trade; (i.e. due to the mathematical formula that determines GDP, the nation’s GDP is reduced by the amount of the nation’s trade deficit). That’s not an opinion but due to the definition of GDP and the determining formula, it’s a fact.

Are you contending that reduced GDP is not similarly reflected by a reduced number of their nation’s jobs? If that’s your opinion, it’s contrary to the overwhelming majority, (if not effectively all) of the world’s creditable economists’ opinions.

Respectfully, Supposn

regardless of your opinion, for any given amount of a nation’s GDP, that GDP amount is inversely affected by their nation’s balance of trade;

As I mentioned in post #18, I know the damn GDP formula.

Are you contending that reduced GDP is not similarly reflected by a reduced number of their nation’s jobs?

Are you contending that raising the prices of the goods we consume won't reduce our standard of living, GDP and jobs?

Let's say we decided to reduce the incredible coffee trade imbalance the US currently suffers under.

In 2015, we imported $5.1 billion worth of green coffee, but we exported zero.
How many jobs would we create if we implemented a tariff or certificate program in order to
fix this incredibly unbalanced coffee issue?

What would this US grown coffee cost us per pound?
Is this an increase in jobs and GDP that would benefit the nation?

 

[Supposn]

I’ve stated (in this post, in others within other threads and often within other internet groups), “USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods,

And lower our standard of living.

our GDP and numbers of jobs would be greater that year due to this trade policy we had adopted.

I don't think you can prove that.

ToddsterPatriot, it’s contended that despite an Import Certificate policy’s increasing import prices to USA purchasers, it would exert a substantial net benefit upon USA’s economy.

The FACT is for any given annual amount of USA’s entire net spending’ for goods and services, our GDP would have been greater if we had spent less of our dollars for imported products.

A positive relationship between the value of a nation’s annual domestic production and their numbers of jobs is a logical axiom and in turn bolsters those jobs’ median wage.

USA’s adoption of the Import certificate policy as described in Wikipedia’s article would eliminate or almost eliminate USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
The rate of price increases of imports within USA domestic markets, beyond federal government’s direct expenditures for administration and value assessment tasks, are market (rather than government determined).
This market determined portion of Import’s price increase rates’ also serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA exported goods to foreign purchasers.

The import Certificate proposal by far would be of net beneficial to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... Let's say we decided to reduce the incredible coffee trade imbalance the US currently suffers under.

In 2015, we imported $5.1 billion worth of green coffee, but we exported zero.
How many jobs would we create if we implemented a tariff or certificate program in order to
fix this incredibly unbalanced coffee issue?

What would this US grown coffee cost us per pound?
Is this an increase in jobs and GDP that would benefit the nation?

ToddsterPatriot, it’s to your partisan advantage to ignore the significant differences between a tariff policy and Wikipedia’s description of an Import Certificate policy.
Refer to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry;
Definition of sophistry: “Subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation”. The reasoning of your above quoted post is too obviously false to be considered as sophistoric.

Tariffs rates are entirely determined by their government. They increase prices of imported items they’re applied to. To accomplish their purposes, those rates must be sufficiently high; i.e. otherwise they would more or less fail to accomplish their purposes.

Tariffs cannot be dependent upon to eliminate their nation’s trade deficit of the imported items they’re applied to unless they’re so drastically high as to effectively eliminate any importation of those items.

Refer to this thread’s 12:30 AM, December 13, 2016 post for an explanation of why your quoted post’s argument is not germane to the Import Certificate proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I’ve stated (in this post, in others within other threads and often within other internet groups), “USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods,

And lower our standard of living.

our GDP and numbers of jobs would be greater that year due to this trade policy we had adopted.

I don't think you can prove that.

ToddsterPatriot, it’s contended that despite an Import Certificate policy’s increasing import prices to USA purchasers, it would exert a substantial net benefit upon USA’s economy.

The FACT is for any given annual amount of USA’s entire net spending’ for goods and services, our GDP would have been greater if we had spent less of our dollars for imported products.

A positive relationship between the value of a nation’s annual domestic production and their numbers of jobs is a logical axiom and in turn bolsters those jobs’ median wage.

USA’s adoption of the Import certificate policy as described in Wikipedia’s article would eliminate or almost eliminate USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
The rate of price increases of imports within USA domestic markets, beyond federal government’s direct expenditures for administration and value assessment tasks, are market (rather than government determined).
This market determined portion of Import’s price increase rates’ also serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA exported goods to foreign purchasers.

The import Certificate proposal by far would be of net beneficial to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, it’s contended that despite an Import Certificate policy’s increasing import prices to USA purchasers, it would exert a substantial net benefit upon USA’s economy.

Yes, whenever I pay more for my consumption, I benefit, so it's easy to claim that the entire economy would benefit. Wait, what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Let's say we decided to reduce the incredible coffee trade imbalance the US currently suffers under.

In 2015, we imported $5.1 billion worth of green coffee, but we exported zero.
How many jobs would we create if we implemented a tariff or certificate program in order to
fix this incredibly unbalanced coffee issue?

What would this US grown coffee cost us per pound?
Is this an increase in jobs and GDP that would benefit the nation?

ToddsterPatriot, it’s to your partisan advantage to ignore the significant differences between a tariff policy and Wikipedia’s description of an Import Certificate policy.
Refer to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry;
Definition of sophistry: “Subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation”. The reasoning of your above quoted post is too obviously false to be considered as sophistoric.

Tariffs rates are entirely determined by their government. They increase prices of imported items they’re applied to. To accomplish their purposes, those rates must be sufficiently high; i.e. otherwise they would more or less fail to accomplish their purposes.

Tariffs cannot be dependent upon to eliminate their nation’s trade deficit of the imported items they’re applied to unless they’re so drastically high as to effectively eliminate any importation of those items.

Refer to this thread’s 12:30 AM, December 13, 2016 post for an explanation of why your quoted post’s argument is not germane to the Import Certificate proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, it’s to your partisan advantage to ignore the significant differences between a tariff policy and Wikipedia’s description of an Import Certificate policy.

If my coffee costs $20 per pound, why do I care if the price hike is due to a tariff or a certificate?
How many US jobs are created now that we'll import no coffee?
How much will GDP increase because of higher priced coffee?

 

[Supposn]

Yes, whenever I pay more for my consumption, I benefit, so it's easy to claim that the entire economy would benefit. Wait, what?

ToddsterPatriot, the logic of your arguments are common to all those in general principle or due to their own individual best interests object to government regulations. This is different than objection to specific proposed or existing regulation for specific and reasonably logical causes that primarily consider our nation's best interests.

Contending that trade deficits are not detrimental to their nation’s GDPs is not simply contrary to OPINIONS of others, but because the balance of trade is integral to the formula that defines the extents of nations’ GDPs, it is contrary to FACT.

If it’s your opinion that there’s not a positive relationship between USA’s annual GDPs and our numbers of jobs, that’s an opinion not shared by an overwhelming proportion of the world’s creditable economists, (but as the late U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan said), “you’re entitled to your own opinions”.

[The rate of price increases of imports within USA domestic markets, beyond federal government’s direct expenditures for administration and value assessment tasks, are market (rather than government determined).
This market determined portion of Import’s price increase rates’ also serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA exported goods to foreign purchasers].

Within the Import Certificate policy rather than tariff policy, if USA’s purchasers balk at when import prices within USA’s domestic markets are increased to some point they deem to be much lesser acceptable, some market pressures' exerted to reduce the extent of those price increases; (i.e. price increases to USA purchasers of imports will be substantially affected by USA’s domestic markets’ behaviors).

Your opinion that the Import Certificate policy would not be of net economic benefit to USA’s economy does not stand up well against these arguments.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, whenever I pay more for my consumption, I benefit, so it's easy to claim that the entire economy would benefit. Wait, what?

ToddsterPatriot, the logic of your arguments are common to all those in general principle or due to their own individual best interests object to government regulations. This is different than objection to specific proposed or existing regulation for specific and reasonably logical causes that primarily consider our nation's best interests.

Contending that trade deficits are not detrimental to their nation’s GDPs is not simply contrary to OPINIONS of others, but because the balance of trade is integral to the formula that defines the extents of nations’ GDPs, it is contrary to FACT.

If it’s your opinion that there’s not a positive relationship between USA’s annual GDPs and our numbers of jobs, that’s an opinion not shared by an overwhelming proportion of the world’s creditable economists, (but as the late U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan said), “you’re entitled to your own opinions”.

[The rate of price increases of imports within USA domestic markets, beyond federal government’s direct expenditures for administration and value assessment tasks, are market (rather than government determined).
This market determined portion of Import’s price increase rates’ also serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA exported goods to foreign purchasers].

Within the Import Certificate policy rather than tariff policy, if USA’s purchasers balk at when import prices within USA’s domestic markets are increased to some point they deem to be much lesser acceptable, some market pressures' exerted to reduce the extent of those price increases; (i.e. price increases to USA purchasers of imports will be substantially affected by USA’s domestic markets’ behaviors).

Your opinion that the Import Certificate policy would not be of net economic benefit to USA’s economy does not stand up well against these arguments.

Respectfully, Supposn

Contending that trade deficits are not detrimental to their nation’s GDPs

I told you, I know the formula for GDP.

Now, you tell me, will raising the price of, for instance, coffee to say $20 a pound, help our GDP or hurt it?
Would that increase our standard or living or decrease it?

 

[Supposn]

If my coffee costs $20 per pound, why do I care if the price hike is due to a tariff or a certificate?
How many US jobs are created now that we'll import no coffee?
How much will GDP increase because of higher priced coffee?

ToddsterPatriot, your opinion that the Import Certificate policy would not be of net economic benefit to USA’s economy does not stand up well against contrary arguments.
If there’s an effective USA demand for any foreign produced item, the Import Certificate policy would not and could not prevent such an item from being imported into the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If my coffee costs $20 per pound, why do I care if the price hike is due to a tariff or a certificate?
How many US jobs are created now that we'll import no coffee?
How much will GDP increase because of higher priced coffee?

ToddsterPatriot, your opinion that the Import Certificate policy would not be of net economic benefit to USA’s economy does not stand up well against contrary arguments.
If there’s an effective USA demand for any foreign produced item, the Import Certificate policy would not and could not prevent such an item from being imported into the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, your opinion that the Import Certificate policy would not be of net economic benefit to USA’s economy does not stand up well against contrary arguments.

I await your proof that it is a net economic benefit.
Start with the benefit of $20 coffee, Thanks!

If there’s an effective USA demand for any foreign produced item, the Import Certificate policy would not and could not prevent such an item from being imported into the USA.

You bet. We'd import less and it would cost more.
Now about that $20 coffee......you appear to be avoiding the question.

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 16048100, member: 29707]ToddsterPatriot, your opinion that the Import Certificate policy would not be of net economic benefit to USA’s economy does not stand up well against contrary arguments.

I await your proof that it is a net economic benefit.
Start with the benefit of $20 coffee, Thanks!

If there’s an effective USA demand for any foreign produced item, the Import Certificate policy would not and could not prevent such an item from being imported into the USA.

You bet. We'd import less and it would cost more.
Now about that $20 coffee......you appear to be avoiding the question.[/QUOTE]

ToddsterPatriot, my request is more modest than yours. I do not request “proof” but only a more compelling logical argument as to why USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would not be to our nation’s net economic benefit. Your arguments thus far do not stand up well against contrary arguments.

Regarding $20/lb. coffee, there’s no reason to believe that coffee prices will or will not someday reach $20 within our domestic markets regardless of what our trade policies evolve to be in the future.

I am confident that (assuming USA domestic markets remain competitive market places), products prices will continue to be that determined by the opposing pressures exerted by what prices those markets will bear and what prices will be most profitable to producers and venders of the items being marketed. This remains true regardless of whatever is or will be USA’s global trade policies.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 16048100, member: 29707]ToddsterPatriot, your opinion that the Import Certificate policy would not be of net economic benefit to USA’s economy does not stand up well against contrary arguments.

I await your proof that it is a net economic benefit.
Start with the benefit of $20 coffee, Thanks!

If there’s an effective USA demand for any foreign produced item, the Import Certificate policy would not and could not prevent such an item from being imported into the USA.

You bet. We'd import less and it would cost more.
Now about that $20 coffee......you appear to be avoiding the question.

ToddsterPatriot, my request is more modest than yours. I do not request “proof” but only a more compelling logical argument as to why USA’s adoption of the Import Certificate policy would not be to our nation’s net economic benefit. Your arguments thus far do not stand up well against contrary arguments.

Regarding $20/lb. coffee, there’s no reason to believe that coffee prices will or will not someday reach $20 within our domestic markets regardless of what our trade policies evolve to be in the future.

I am confident that (assuming USA domestic markets remain competitive market places), products prices will continue to be that determined by the opposing pressures exerted by what prices those markets will bear and what prices will be most profitable to producers and venders of the items being marketed. This remains true regardless of whatever is or will be USA’s global trade policies.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your arguments thus far do not stand up well against contrary arguments.

My argument is that raising the price of things we consume is not to our benefit.
Feel free to explain how it is to our benefit.

More expensive coffee and crude oil, for instance, would leave me and many others with less money to
spend on other goods. Where is the benefit in that?

 

[Onyx]

Onyx, reconsider you post. You’ve contended there’s no relationship between the net volume of a nation’s annual global trade balance of goods and their annual volume of domestic production of goods? There’s no relationship between a nation’s annual GDP and their numbers of jobs?

I stated that there is no intrinsic relationship between a deficit in trade and nominal GDP.

The consequences of USA seeking to practice “pure” free trade is net detrimental to USA’s GDP and that’s particularly reflected in less than otherwise numbers of USA jobs. This is net detrimental to USA’s economy.

Actually no, and there are a lot of fallacies in your argument that you are not aware of.

More trade always creates more jobs. The more liberty permitted to cross-national markets, the more trade there is, and therefore the more jobs.

 

[Supposn]

My argument is that raising the price of things we consume is not to our benefit.
Feel free to explain how it is to our benefit.

More expensive coffee and crude oil, for instance, would leave me and many others with less money to
spend on other goods. Where is the benefit in that?

ToddsterPatriot, I’ve often written of increased prices of imports to USA purchasers detrimental effects upon USA’s economy, but (despite that) the Import Certificate policy would be net beneficial to our economy.

This is due to the proposed trade policy increasing our GDP and number of jobs more than otherwise while serving as an indirect price subsidy of USA exports sold to foreign purchasers. These benefits far exceed the economic detriment of USA’s increased import prices. Individuals and enterprises in the USA would be earning incomes of greater purchasing powers.

To critique Import Certificates or anything else, it’s advisable to be knowledgeable of your subject. Crude oil is not germane to a discussion of Import Certificate policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Actually no, and there are a lot of fallacies in your argument that you are not aware of.

More trade always creates more jobs. The more liberty permitted to cross-national markets, the more trade there is, and therefore the more jobs.

Onyx, you and ToddsterPatriot are incorrect; refer to this thread’s 11:54 AM, December 210, 2016 post.

Unless a nation is enjoying “full employment”, due to a nation’s annual trade deficit their GDP and numbers of jobs were less than otherwise. Annual trade deficits are never beneficial and (possibly excluding nations’ enjoying full employment), trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation’s economy.

I suppose you have or will post a narration of the fallacies you perceive me to be unaware of?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My argument is that raising the price of things we consume is not to our benefit.
Feel free to explain how it is to our benefit.

More expensive coffee and crude oil, for instance, would leave me and many others with less money to
spend on other goods. Where is the benefit in that?

ToddsterPatriot, I’ve often written of increased prices of imports to USA purchasers detrimental effects upon USA’s economy, but (despite that) the Import Certificate policy would be net beneficial to our economy.

This is due to the proposed trade policy increasing our GDP and number of jobs more than otherwise while serving as an indirect price subsidy of USA exports sold to foreign purchasers. These benefits far exceed the economic detriment of USA’s increased import prices. Individuals and enterprises in the USA would be earning incomes of greater purchasing powers.

To critique Import Certificates or anything else, it’s advisable to be knowledgeable of your subject. Crude oil is not germane to a discussion of Import Certificate policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

These benefits far exceed the economic detriment of USA’s increased import prices.

You still can't prove it.

Crude oil is not germane to a discussion of Import Certificate policy.

Crude oil imports are a large part of our trade deficit.
$126 billion last year. How can such a line item not be germane?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually no, and there are a lot of fallacies in your argument that you are not aware of.

More trade always creates more jobs. The more liberty permitted to cross-national markets, the more trade there is, and therefore the more jobs.

Onyx, you and ToddsterPatriot are incorrect; refer to this thread’s 11:54 AM, December 210, 2016 post.

Unless a nation is enjoying “full employment”, due to a nation’s annual trade deficit their GDP and numbers of jobs were less than otherwise. Annual trade deficits are never beneficial and (possibly excluding nations’ enjoying full employment), trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation’s economy.

I suppose you have or will post a narration of the fallacies you perceive me to be unaware of?

Respectfully, Supposn

Annual trade deficits are never beneficial and (possibly excluding nations’ enjoying full employment), trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation’s economy.

Outlaw all oil imports. You've reduced our trade deficit, by quite a bit.
How many jobs will that add? How much more will GDP increase?
Please show all your math.

Thanks!!!

 

[Supposn]

These benefits far exceed the economic detriment of USA’s increased import prices.

You still can't prove it.

Crude oil is not germane to a discussion of Import Certificate policy.

Crude oil imports are a large part of our trade deficit.
$126 billion last year. How can such a line item not be germane?

ToddsterPatriot, it’s a fact due to the definition of GDP and the conventionally accepted formula that describes the extent of a nation’s annual GDP, that trade deficits are detrimental to their nation’s annual GDP regardless of whatever was the amount of the nation’s GDP during any given year.
Refer to this thread’s 11:54 AM, December 210, 2016 post.

You’re contending that a nation’s lesser GDP than otherwise isn’t reflected by their lesser numbers of jobs than otherwise?

To critique Import Certificates or anything else, it’s advisable to be knowledgeable of your subject
Crude oil is not germane to a discussion of Import Certificate policy because the Import Certificate proposal is explicitly not applicable to crude oil.

Respectfully, Supposn