Is free trade among countries the same as among individuals?

[Supposn]

I do (understand the concept of Import Certificates). But I'm more interested in the increased GDP we'll enjoy if the government stops all banana imports and I can produce US bananas at $1000 each.

How much do you think GDP will increase......ballpark?

ToddsterPatriot, GDP is measured in our currency of wealth, (i.e. in our case we usually gauge GDP in actual or indexed adjusted U.S. Dollars). It's less meaningful if it's not considered in per capita terms.

It's not subject to judgments of spendings' moral or intelligent priorities; (i.e. a nation can waste their wealth on mind-altering substances such as alcohol or cocaine, vanities or "conspicuous consumptions" or idiocies such as cosmetics, fashion such as name brand gowns and or Holland's era of tulip madness, or as you suggest, $1,000.00 per banana).

An aggregate national population or individual persons can behave more intelligently or more idiotic. We individuals can and often do judge each other's priorities or concepts as less intelligent, or foolish, or idiotic.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I do (understand the concept of Import Certificates). But I'm more interested in the increased GDP we'll enjoy if the government stops all banana imports and I can produce US bananas at $1000 each.

How much do you think GDP will increase......ballpark?

ToddsterPatriot, GDP is measured in our currency of wealth, (i.e. in our case we usually gauge GDP in actual or indexed adjusted U.S. Dollars). It's less meaningful if it's not considered in per capita terms.

It's not subject to judgments of spendings' moral or intelligent priorities; (i.e. a nation can waste their wealth on mind-altering substances such as alcohol or cocaine, vanities or "conspicuous consumptions" or idiocies such as cosmetics, fashion such as name brand gowns and or Holland's era of tulip madness, or as you suggest, $1,000.00 per banana).

An aggregate national population or individual persons can behave more intelligently or more idiotic. We individuals can and often do judge each other's priorities or concepts as less intelligent, or foolish, or idiotic.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, GDP is measured in our currency of wealth,

Yes. So if the government stopped banana imports and I grew them and sold them for $1000 each,
how much higher is our measured GDP?

An aggregate national population or individual persons can behave more intelligently or more idiotic.

Right. Your intelligent plan results in fewer imports and more domestic production.
My banana plan accomplishes the same result, with a different mechanism.

 

[Supposn]

Right. Your intelligent plan results in fewer imports and more domestic production.
My banana plan accomplishes the same result, with a different mechanism.

ToddsterPatriot, unlike your proposed enterprise's bananas produced in the USA at a cost of $1,000.00 each, the proposed USA adoption of the Import Certificate policy is sustainable, and the increased USA GDP values would would reflect the actual increased global markets' values of USA's production, (rather than your enterprises $1,000 costs per banana). Additionally, the proposal would commence in reasonable time after enactment, to increase USA's volumes of global trade more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right. Your intelligent plan results in fewer imports and more domestic production.
My banana plan accomplishes the same result, with a different mechanism.

ToddsterPatriot, unlike your proposed enterprise's bananas produced in the USA at a cost of $1,000.00 each, the proposed USA adoption of the Import Certificate policy is sustainable, and the increased USA GDP values would would reflect the actual increased global markets' values of USA's production, (rather than your enterprises $1,000 costs per banana). Additionally, the proposal would commence in reasonable time after enactment, to increase USA's volumes of global trade more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

the proposed USA adoption of the Import Certificate policy is sustainable,

Yeah, it's an awesome plan. Now, back to your claim that because trade deficits, by definition, reduce our GDP, we should implement plan(s) that reduce the trade deficit, because increased GDP will add US jobs.

I want to start my $1000 banana production. If the government eliminates all banana imports, and I produce
1000 bananas a month and sell them at $1000 each, how much will US GDP increase?

If the math is too difficult for you, just say so.

and the increased USA GDP values would would reflect the actual increased global markets' values of USA's production, (rather than your enterprises $1,000 costs per banana)

The market value of my bananas is $1000 each. Higher US GDP, guaranteed.

​

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, you don't understand the concept of Import Certificates. ...Import Certificate law cannot and will not be able to prevent importation of any item for which there's an effective demand within the USA.

If you're not willing and able to continue spending $1,000 each to produce domestic bananas, and/or sell them at that price, your business plan couldn't sustain any contributions to increase USA's annual GDPs.

Refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. ...

... I want to start my $1000 banana production. If the government eliminates all banana imports, and I produce
1000 bananas a month and sell them at $1000 each, how much will US GDP increase? ... The market value of my bananas is $1000 each. Higher US GDP, guaranteed.

ToddsterPatriot, we do not doubt that you, or someone as clever as you can devise a method to deliberately produce USA bananas at a cost of $1,000.00 each.

Trump was elected president of the United States of America; I won't contend our government would not prohibit bananas from being imported into the USA, but I do not see any logical reason for such a prohibition.
(Import Certificate law cannot and will not be able to prevent importation of any item for which there's an effective demand within the USA).

[President Trump is currently busy. He's attempting to get his wall constructed. The Mexican government seems reluctant to grant him a “bridge loan” until it's finished].

Who's going to buy those $1,000.00 bananas and at what price? You think there's a sustainable market for many $1,000.00 bananas?
The “market price” for $1,000.00 bananas is zero if there is no effective demand for such a product.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, you don't understand the concept of Import Certificates. ...Import Certificate law cannot and will not be able to prevent importation of any item for which there's an effective demand within the USA.

If you're not willing and able to continue spending $1,000 each to produce domestic bananas, and/or sell them at that price, your business plan couldn't sustain any contributions to increase USA's annual GDPs.

Refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. ...

... I want to start my $1000 banana production. If the government eliminates all banana imports, and I produce
1000 bananas a month and sell them at $1000 each, how much will US GDP increase? ... The market value of my bananas is $1000 each. Higher US GDP, guaranteed.

ToddsterPatriot, we do not doubt that you, or someone as clever as you can devise a method to deliberately produce USA bananas at a cost of $1,000.00 each.

Trump was elected president of the United States of America; I won't contend our government would not prohibit bananas from being imported into the USA, but I do not see any logical reason for such a prohibition.
(Import Certificate law cannot and will not be able to prevent importation of any item for which there's an effective demand within the USA).

[President Trump is currently busy. He's attempting to get his wall constructed. The Mexican government seems reluctant to grant him a “bridge loan” until it's finished].

Who's going to buy those $1,000.00 bananas and at what price? You think there's a sustainable market for many $1,000.00 bananas?
The “market price” for $1,000.00 bananas is zero if there is no effective demand for such a product.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, we do not doubt that you, or someone as clever as you can devise a method to deliberately produce USA bananas at a cost of $1,000.00 each.

No, silly, I'll produce them for less than $1000, I'll sell them for $1000.

but I do not see any logical reason for such a prohibition.

To increase US GDP. Isn't that what you want?

Who's going to buy those $1,000.00 bananas and at what price?

You're worried about increased prices hurting demand?

So, back to the question you keep avoiding.......

If the government eliminates all banana imports, and I produce
1000 bananas a month and sell them at $1000 each, how much will US GDP increase?​

 

[Supposn]

... So, back to the question you keep avoiding.......

If the government eliminates all banana imports, and I produce
1000 bananas a month and sell them at $1000 each, how much will US GDP increase?​

Toddsterpatriot, if the government effectively eliminates all banana imports, there are effectively no USA domestic markets for imported bananas regardless of price.
Only to the extent that exported USA bananas @ $1,000.00 each can be sold, are there global markets for such bananas. You're evading the inconvenient consequence of your unsustainable plan. It would not increase USA's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... So, back to the question you keep avoiding.......

If the government eliminates all banana imports, and I produce
1000 bananas a month and sell them at $1000 each, how much will US GDP increase?​

Toddsterpatriot, if the government effectively eliminates all banana imports, there are effectively no USA domestic markets for imported bananas regardless of price.
Only to the extent that exported USA bananas @ $1,000.00 each can be sold, are there global markets for such bananas. You're evading the inconvenient consequence of your unsustainable plan. It would not increase USA's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

if the government effectively eliminates all banana imports, there are effectively no USA domestic markets for imported bananas regardless of price.

Well, yes, no imports means no imports.

Only to the extent that exported USA bananas @ $1,000.00 each can be sold

I'm not going to export my bananas. They're for domestic sale only.

It would not increase USA's GDP.

It would eliminate the trade deficit in bananas. You said that will, by definition, increase our GDP.

So how much will US GDP increase? Let me know if you need help with the math.

 

[Supposn]

Well, yes, no imports means no imports.
I'm not going to export my bananas. They're for domestic sale only.

It would eliminate the trade deficit in bananas. You said that will, by definition, increase our GDP.

So how much will US GDP increase?

ToddsterPatriot, you may successfully lobby for prohibiting banana to be imported into the USA. But I doubt if you can sell many USA bananas at $1,000.00 each; USA will effectively cease consuming bananas.
You're assuming USA consumers will not spend their previous “banana dollars” for other goods and services?
How does your proposal effectively increase USA's GDP?
I did not say "Eliminating USA's trade deficit in bananas would by definition increase our GDP".
I stated that due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs. If USA enacted the policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise; otherwise being if USA does not remedy our global trade policies.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, yes, no imports means no imports.
I'm not going to export my bananas. They're for domestic sale only.

It would eliminate the trade deficit in bananas. You said that will, by definition, increase our GDP.

So how much will US GDP increase?

ToddsterPatriot, you may successfully lobby for prohibiting banana to be imported into the USA. But I doubt if you can sell many USA bananas at $1,000.00 each; USA will effectively cease consuming bananas.
You're assuming USA consumers will not spend their previous “banana dollars” for other goods and services?
How does your proposal effectively increase USA's GDP?
I did not say "Eliminating USA's trade deficit in bananas would by definition increase our GDP".
I stated that due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs. If USA enacted the policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise; otherwise being if USA does not remedy our global trade policies.

Respectfully, Supposn

How does your proposal effectively increase USA's GDP?

Smaller trade deficit = higher GDP.

I did not say "Eliminating USA's trade deficit in bananas would by definition increase our GDP".

You did. In the very next sentence. And in every thread you made about Import Certificates.

I stated that due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs.

So you agree, my proposal would increase US GDP.

If USA enacted the policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise;

If USA enacted my banana policy, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

But I doubt if you can sell many USA bananas at $1,000.00 each; USA will effectively cease consuming bananas.

So what? GDP and jobs is more important than imported bananas.

 

[Supposn]

How does your proposal effectively increase USA's GDP?

Smaller trade deficit = higher GDP.

I did not say "Eliminating USA's trade deficit in bananas would by definition increase our GDP".

You did. In the very next sentence. And in every thread you made about Import Certificates.

I stated that due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs.

So you agree, my proposal would increase US GDP.

If USA enacted the policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise;

If USA enacted my banana policy, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

But I doubt if you can sell many USA bananas at $1,000.00 each; USA will effectively cease consuming bananas.

So what? GDP and jobs is more important than imported bananas.

ToddsterPatriot, your statements, “Smaller trade deficit = higher GDP” and “Eliminating USA's trade deficit in bananas would by definition increase our GDP” are products of your own imagination. I never made those statements.

You quoted me correctly, I do state "due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs". That's not the same as your conclusions.

Similarly, your concluding I concur with your confidence in your proposal's ability to increase USA's GDP has no basis upon facts.

I don't recall stating it precisely in your manner, but I do not disagree with your contention of nations' GDPs economic significances.

Respectfuly, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does your proposal effectively increase USA's GDP?

Smaller trade deficit = higher GDP.

I did not say "Eliminating USA's trade deficit in bananas would by definition increase our GDP".

You did. In the very next sentence. And in every thread you made about Import Certificates.

I stated that due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs.

So you agree, my proposal would increase US GDP.

If USA enacted the policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise;

If USA enacted my banana policy, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

But I doubt if you can sell many USA bananas at $1,000.00 each; USA will effectively cease consuming bananas.

So what? GDP and jobs is more important than imported bananas.

ToddsterPatriot, your statements, “Smaller trade deficit = higher GDP” and “Eliminating USA's trade deficit in bananas would by definition increase our GDP” are products of your own imagination. I never made those statements.

You quoted me correctly, I do state "due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs". That's not the same as your conclusions.

Similarly, your concluding I concur with your confidence in your proposal's ability to increase USA's GDP has no basis upon facts.

I don't recall stating it precisely in your manner, but I do not disagree with your contention of nations' GDPs economic significances.

Respectfuly, Supposn

You quoted me correctly, I do state "due to a nation's annual trade deficit, their GDP is less than otherwise and that drags upon our numbers of jobs". That's not the same as your conclusions.

If the government blocked all banana imports, would that reduce the trade deficit?
If that action reduced the trade deficit, wouldn't that make our GDP "more than otherwise?

 

[Supposn]

If the government blocked all banana imports, would that reduce the trade deficit?
If that action reduced the trade deficit, wouldn't that make our GDP "more than otherwise?

ToddsterPatriot, IF government illogically chose to block all banana imports, then to the extent of the remaining balance of trade and whatever is our domestic production of products, yes that would reduce the nation's trade deficit to the extent of lost imported banana sales within the USA; (i.e. yes that would reduce the nation's trade deficit more than otherwise).
Our annual GDP is composed of our annual production of Products. Annual trade surpluses contribute, and trade deficits are detrimental to our annual GDP. To the extent of our annual domestic production of goods, increasing our annual balances of trade, (i.e. reducing our chronic annual trade deficits) would increase our annual GDPs more than otherwise.
But your proposal to prohibit banana imports and produce USA bananas at $1,000.00 each would increase USA's GDP only to the net increase of our balance of trade plus sales of our domestic products within USA marketplaces. I doubt the feasibility and sustainability of your proposal to produce USA bananas and sell them at $1,000.00 each in order to increase USA's GDP.

You're trying to cut off the top of a blanket and sew it onto the bottom in order to make the blanket longer.

Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would eliminate or very significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
The policy itself is unable to prevent importing of any item for which there's an effective USA demand.
To the extent that Import Certificates global prices exceed the federal fees that exporters of USA goods choose to pay, the policy serves as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA's exports. All net costs are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods and the policies sustainable.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the government blocked all banana imports, would that reduce the trade deficit?
If that action reduced the trade deficit, wouldn't that make our GDP "more than otherwise?

ToddsterPatriot, IF government illogically chose to block all banana imports, then to the extent of the remaining balance of trade and whatever is our domestic production of products, yes that would reduce the nation's trade deficit to the extent of lost imported banana sales within the USA; (i.e. yes that would reduce the nation's trade deficit more than otherwise).
Our annual GDP is composed of our annual production of Products. Annual trade surpluses contribute, and trade deficits are detrimental to our annual GDP. To the extent of our annual domestic production of goods, increasing our annual balances of trade, (i.e. reducing our chronic annual trade deficits) would increase our annual GDPs more than otherwise.
But your proposal to prohibit banana imports and produce USA bananas at $1,000.00 each would increase USA's GDP only to the net increase of our balance of trade plus sales of our domestic products within USA marketplaces. I doubt the feasibility and sustainability of your proposal to produce USA bananas and sell them at $1,000.00 each in order to increase USA's GDP.

You're trying to cut off the top of a blanket and sew it onto the bottom in order to make the blanket longer.

Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would eliminate or very significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
The policy itself is unable to prevent importing of any item for which there's an effective USA demand.
To the extent that Import Certificates global prices exceed the federal fees that exporters of USA goods choose to pay, the policy serves as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA's exports. All net costs are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods and the policies sustainable.
Respectfully, Supposn

IF government illogically chose to block all banana imports

Logically, to reduce the trade deficit you so dislike.

Our annual GDP is composed of our annual production of Products. Annual trade surpluses contribute, and trade deficits are detrimental to our annual GDP.

I want to shrink the "detriment" of banana imports.
Suddenly you no longer favor the increase in GDP that would result?

But your proposal to prohibit banana imports and produce USA bananas at $1,000.00 each would increase USA's GDP only to the net increase of our balance of trade plus sales of our domestic products within USA marketplaces.

Yes, my proposal would, as you admit, increase USA's GDP.

You're trying to cut off the top of a blanket and sew it onto the bottom in order to make the blanket longer.​

How is my plan, which you admit will increase our GDP, at all like you blanket example?
The current trade deficit, as you say, makes our blanket (GDP) smaller.
I want to make it larger. Why won't you support my plan?​

 

[Supposn]

How is my plan, which you admit will increase our GDP, at all like you blanket example?

The current trade deficit, as you say, makes our blanket (GDP) smaller.
I want to make it larger. Why won't you support my plan?​

ToddsterPatriot, your plan MAY possibly increase GDP dependent upon the sales of USA produced bananas but it's also dependent upon your enterprise continuing to deliberately lose money by producing USA bananas that decay and cannot be sold at your asking price; it's commercially unsustainable even if federal law should prohibit importation of bananas.

Under federal laws as described by Wikipedia's article, Import Certificate policy will certainly increase USA's GDP more than otherwise. The policy's sustained by all party's continuing to act in what they believe to be their most advantageous manner.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is my plan, which you admit will increase our GDP, at all like you blanket example?

The current trade deficit, as you say, makes our blanket (GDP) smaller.
I want to make it larger. Why won't you support my plan?​

ToddsterPatriot, your plan MAY possibly increase GDP dependent upon the sales of USA produced bananas but it's also dependent upon your enterprise continuing to deliberately lose money by producing USA bananas that decay and cannot be sold at your asking price; it's commercially unsustainable even if federal law should prohibit importation of bananas.

Under federal laws as described by Wikipedia's article, Import Certificate policy will certainly increase USA's GDP more than otherwise. The policy's sustained by all party's continuing to act in what they believe to be their most advantageous manner.

Respectfully, Supposn

your plan MAY possibly increase GDP dependent upon the sales of USA produced bananas

Hold on. Even if I sell zero bananas, the reduction in the trade deficit increases our GDP.

Import Certificate policy will certainly increase USA's GDP more than otherwise.

So will my banana policy. I've heard from a reliable source, "Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP; a trade deficit nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to its negative balance of trade"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[ Import Certificate policy will certainly increase USA's GDP more than otherwise.

why on earth would taxing the American people increase GDP? GDP grows through the invention of new products not by raising taxes.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, comparison of Wikipedia's Import Certificates and your banana trade proposal:

Unlike your banana proposal, the Import Certificate proposal's applicable to almost goods passing through USA's borders. It would increase our GDP by a much greater amount (than possible for your banana proposal).

Import Certificate policy's substantially market driven; the markets determine which goods are to be shipped where, when, and at what price; unlike your proposal to prohibit bananas from entering the USA.

The federal fees are by law limited to only defraying direct federal expenses due to this policy. Certificates global market price rates exceeding the federal fee rates serve as indirect but effective price subsidies for USA's exported goods.

Certificates global market price rates determine the price increases to USA purchasers of imported goods.

If USA producers can satisfy USA purchasers' price demands, (i.e. if there's effective USA demand), USA producers are always eager to satisfy those demands.

Unlike your banana proposal, if (despite the requirement for surrender of certificates), importers can satisfy USA purchasers' price demands, they also will be eager to satisfy those demands.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

your plan MAY possibly increase GDP dependent upon the sales of USA produced bananas
Hold on. Even if I sell zero bananas, the reduction in the trade deficit increases our GDP.

Import Certificate policy will certainly increase USA's GDP more than otherwise.
So will my banana policy. I've heard from a reliable source, "Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP; a trade deficit nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to its negative balance of trade"

ToddsterPatriot, considering your plan to lobby our government to prohibit importation of bananas and your enterprise would produce USA domestic bananas:

Your plan would more than otherwise reduce USA's annual trade deficits if eliminating our trade deficit of bananas was the only induced modification to our balance of trade; (i.e. if your plan does consequentially increase our net balance of trade. (For example if USA consumers do not purchase more imported products other than bananas or if our volumes of exports do not decrease).

The short answer is that prohibiting bananas from entering the USA would certainly reduce our chronic trade deficits more than otherwise, to the apparent extent of our previous consumption of imported bananas.

Your plan would increase USA production by growing domestic bananas. Your plan will succeed to the extent that you can grow AND SELL your bananas. If you can't sell the bananas at a profit, that's not a sustainable enterprise and USA consumers will get no bananas,

To the extent that your plan consequentially increases our nation's net balance of trade or increases our domestic goods and services production, your plan increases our GDP more than otherwise but only to the extent of our reduced banana importation and our production and sales of USA grown bananas.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

your plan MAY possibly increase GDP dependent upon the sales of USA produced bananas
Hold on. Even if I sell zero bananas, the reduction in the trade deficit increases our GDP.

Import Certificate policy will certainly increase USA's GDP more than otherwise.
So will my banana policy. I've heard from a reliable source, "Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP; a trade deficit nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to its negative balance of trade"

ToddsterPatriot, considering your plan to lobby our government to prohibit importation of bananas and your enterprise would produce USA domestic bananas:

Your plan would more than otherwise reduce USA's annual trade deficits if eliminating our trade deficit of bananas was the only induced modification to our balance of trade; (i.e. if your plan does consequentially increase our net balance of trade. (For example if USA consumers do not purchase more imported products other than bananas or if our volumes of exports do not decrease).

The short answer is that prohibiting bananas from entering the USA would certainly reduce our chronic trade deficits more than otherwise, to the apparent extent of our previous consumption of imported bananas.

Your plan would increase USA production by growing domestic bananas. Your plan will succeed to the extent that you can grow AND SELL your bananas. If you can't sell the bananas at a profit, that's not a sustainable enterprise and USA consumers will get no bananas,

To the extent that your plan consequentially increases our nation's net balance of trade or increases our domestic goods and services production, your plan increases our GDP more than otherwise but only to the extent of our reduced banana importation and our production and sales of USA grown bananas.

Respectfully, Supposn

If you can't sell the bananas at a profit, that's not a sustainable enterprise and USA consumers will get no bananas,

Why should that matter? I'm only interested in increasing US GDP.

your plan increases our GDP more than otherwise but only to the extent of our reduced banana importation and our production and sales of USA grown bananas.

Can I count on your support?