Is free trade among countries the same as among individuals?

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?
Toddsterpatriot, the short answer is No, you cannot count on my support.
There's economic justification for our government to eliminate or significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits.

There's no justification for our government targeting only bananas when we know that the proposal will not significantly reduce our annual trade deficits of goods. Bananas alone are not a significant portion of USA's annual imports and there no good reason for our nation to discriminate among import products or imports' national origins.

The proposal's not a sincere attempt to achieve a remedy; it's deliberately mischievous.

If USA banana producers cannot satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have no bananas.
If USA banana producers can satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have bananas at an increased price.
In all cases, it will not significantly improve our economy but it will to some extent upset our foreign relations. The USA will be reputed to be a nation that acts more foolishly and for no clear advantage even for ourselves.

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?
Toddsterpatriot, the short answer is No, you cannot count on my support.
There's economic justification for our government to eliminate or significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits.

There's no justification for our government targeting only bananas when we know that the proposal will not significantly reduce our annual trade deficits of goods. Bananas alone are not a significant portion of USA's annual imports and there no good reason for our nation to discriminate among import products or imports' national origins.

The proposal's not a sincere attempt to achieve a remedy; it's deliberately mischievous.

If USA banana producers cannot satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have no bananas.
If USA banana producers can satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have bananas at an increased price.
In all cases, it will not significantly improve our economy but it will to some extent upset our foreign relations. The USA will be reputed to be a nation that acts more foolishly and for no clear advantage even for ourselves.

Respectfully, Supposn

the short answer is No, you cannot count on my support.

But my plan increases US GDP by reducing the trade deficit.

Bananas alone are not a significant portion of USA's annual imports

So what? We need to start somewhere. The journey of a thousand miles.......

If USA banana producers cannot satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have no bananas.

Why do you care? Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers?

If USA banana producers can satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have bananas at an increased price.

Just like your IC idea.

In all cases, it will not significantly improve our economy but it will to some extent upset our foreign relations.

Hmmmmm......just like....well, you get the idea.
 
the short answer is No, you cannot count on my support.
But my plan increases US GDP by reducing the trade deficit.

Bananas alone are not a significant portion of USA's annual imports
So what? We need to start somewhere. The journey of a thousand miles.......

If USA banana producers cannot satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have no bananas.
Why do you care? Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers?

If USA banana producers can satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have bananas at an increased price.
Just like your IC idea.

In all cases, it will not significantly improve our economy but it will to some extent upset our foreign relations.
Hmmmmm......just like....well, you get the idea.
ToddsterPatriot, no, your banana proposal prohibits bananas from being imported into the USA and IF bananas are sold in the USA, they'll be at higher prices.

You ask doesn't the Import Certificate proposal likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers?

No, not to the extent you wish to imply. Although we all benefit from cheaper imports, those benefits do not fully compensate for trade deficits financial detriments to wage earning families incomes. Trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations' GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.
Within the Import Certificate proposal, prices of bananas to USA consumers will be increased but markets determine how much bananas will be imported into the USA.

The increased cost to USA consumers may have a negligible effect upon import volumes of bananas;
or
consequentially Hawaiian bananas are price competitive and fewer bananas are imported from foreign nations;
or
imported bananas are no longer price competitive and Hawaiian bananas crowd them out of USA's markets;
or
bananas become too expensive, diets change and consumers prefer purchasing Alaskan strawberries or some other types of berries in place of bananas.

The point is that the Import Certificate proposal is substantially market-driven, increases USA's GDP more than otherwise which in turn promotes increased employment and to the extent that Import certificate's global price rates exceed the federal fee rates that defray all direct federal costs of the policy, USA exported goods are indirectly but effectively price subsidized.

That's a lot more than can be said for the banana proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
the short answer is No, you cannot count on my support.
But my plan increases US GDP by reducing the trade deficit.

Bananas alone are not a significant portion of USA's annual imports
So what? We need to start somewhere. The journey of a thousand miles.......

If USA banana producers cannot satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have no bananas.
Why do you care? Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers?

If USA banana producers can satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have bananas at an increased price.
Just like your IC idea.

In all cases, it will not significantly improve our economy but it will to some extent upset our foreign relations.
Hmmmmm......just like....well, you get the idea.
ToddsterPatriot, no, your banana proposal prohibits bananas from being imported into the USA and IF bananas are sold in the USA, they'll be at higher prices.

You ask doesn't the Import Certificate proposal likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers?

No, not to the extent you wish to imply. Although we all benefit from cheaper imports, those benefits do not fully compensate for trade deficits financial detriments to wage earning families incomes. Trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations' GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.
Within the Import Certificate proposal, prices of bananas to USA consumers will be increased but markets determine how much bananas will be imported into the USA.

The increased cost to USA consumers may have a negligible effect upon import volumes of bananas;
or
consequentially Hawaiian bananas are price competitive and fewer bananas are imported from foreign nations;
or
imported bananas are no longer price competitive and Hawaiian bananas crowd them out of USA's markets;
or
bananas become too expensive, diets change and consumers prefer purchasing Alaskan strawberries or some other types of berries in place of bananas.

The point is that the Import Certificate proposal is substantially market-driven, increases USA's GDP more than otherwise which in turn promotes increased employment and to the extent that Import certificate's global price rates exceed the federal fee rates that defray all direct federal costs of the policy, USA exported goods are indirectly but effectively price subsidized.

That's a lot more than can be said for the banana proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

your banana proposal prohibits bananas from being imported into the USA and IF bananas are sold in the USA, they'll be at higher prices.

Yes, that's a good summary of the benefits of my plan.
 
... Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers? ...
ToddsterPatriot, no, not to the extent you wish to imply. Your Banana proposal prohibits bananas from being imported into the USA.

Import Certificate proposal requires that Importers' surrender the transferable non-reusable certificates with “face values” sufficient to cover their shipment's assessed values.

Although both proposals increase the prices of bananas to USA consumers, due to the effective unavailability of imported bananas, market determinations effects upon prices will induce prices to be significantly higher within the Banana proposal.

Within the Import Certificate proposal, the federal fee rates to exporters of USA goods CHOOSE to pay, are annually updated by law to only defray federal direct net expenditures due to the proposal. That effectively determines the lowest sustainable global prices of the certificates. The Certificates global prices determine the extents of their effect upon prices upon USA purchasers of Imported goods. Because of the always existing possibility to import bananas, market determinations that affect banana prices in the USA are likely to be less within the Certificate proposal, and higher within the Banana proposal.

Additionally, within the Import Certificate proposal, market-determined increases of global certificate prices are indirect but effective price subsidies for USA's exported goods.

Although we all benefit from cheaper imports, those benefits do not fully compensate for trade deficits financial detriments to wage-earning families incomes. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
... Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers? ...
ToddsterPatriot, no, not to the extent you wish to imply. Your Banana proposal prohibits bananas from being imported into the USA.

Import Certificate proposal requires that Importers' surrender the transferable non-reusable certificates with “face values” sufficient to cover their shipment's assessed values.

Although both proposals increase the prices of bananas to USA consumers, due to the effective unavailability of imported bananas, market determinations effects upon prices will induce prices to be significantly higher within the Banana proposal.

Within the Import Certificate proposal, the federal fee rates to exporters of USA goods CHOOSE to pay, are annually updated by law to only defray federal direct net expenditures due to the proposal. That effectively determines the lowest sustainable global prices of the certificates. The Certificates global prices determine the extents of their effect upon prices upon USA purchasers of Imported goods. Because of the always existing possibility to import bananas, market determinations that affect banana prices in the USA are likely to be less within the Certificate proposal, and higher within the Banana proposal.

Additionally, within the Import Certificate proposal, market-determined increases of global certificate prices are indirect but effective price subsidies for USA's exported goods.

Although we all benefit from cheaper imports, those benefits do not fully compensate for trade deficits financial detriments to wage-earning families incomes. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, no, not to the extent you wish to imply.

What extent did I wish to imply?

Your Banana proposal prohibits bananas from being imported into the USA.

I know! That's why it would be good, because it..... increases USA's GDP more than otherwise which in turn promotes increased employment.

Although both proposals increase the prices of bananas to USA consumers, due to the effective unavailability of imported bananas

Hold on....that sounds familiar.

Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers?

Yeah, I knew I heard that recently.

Additionally, within the Import Certificate proposal, market-determined increases of global certificate prices are indirect but effective price subsidies for USA's exported goods.

It's true, your proposal will to some extent upset our foreign relations.
 
Conservatives and libertarians support free trade between individuals and between countries in the belief that Republican capitalism works best in both cases. isn’t it amazing how despite liberals best efforts they really can’t hide from us the real And constant issue of political economy ie, capitalism versus socialism.
How is it "free"...??
 
Conservatives and libertarians support free trade between individuals and between countries in the belief that Republican capitalism works best in both cases. isn’t it amazing how despite liberals best efforts they really can’t hide from us the real And constant issue of political economy ie, capitalism versus socialism.
How is it "free"...??

free is when there is little or no govt interference.
 
... Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers? ...

ToddsterPatriot, no, not to the extent you wish to imply.
What extent did I wish to imply? ...
ToddsterPatriot, you're implying that many items now being imported would no longer be available from both foreign or domestic producers, or if they are available, they would be price prohibitive to such USA consumers that now purchase such items. The Import Certificate policy is unlike the Banana policy that would effectively make imported bananas unavailable and domestic bananas only available to the extent that they're produced at a price to satisfy USA's effective demand.

The Import certificate policy would make imported bananas less available. The extent of import's availability is dependent upon the global price rate of Import Certificates, imported price comparisons to domestic produced bananas, and USA consumers' preferences. (For further explanation, refer to post #43).

It's conceivable that both policies would be unable to satisfy USA's price demands and USA consumers would get no bananas, but within the Import Certificate policy, in regard to all or almost all items currently being imported, USA consumers would get imported and/or domestically produced products.

Within the Import Certificate policy, the price rates of certificates are not expected to be prohibitive. It's expected there'd be little or no additional production of domestic bananas and imported bananas would be priced less than the domestic bananas would be under the Banana proposal. But the Import Certificate proposal would eliminate or significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, increase our GDP more than otherwise, and that increase will, in turn, increase our numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
The [Banana] proposal's not a sincere attempt to achieve a remedy; it's deliberately mischievous.

If USA banana producers cannot satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have no bananas.

If USA banana producers can satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have bananas at an increased price.

In all cases, it will not significantly improve our economy but it will to some extent upset our foreign relations. The USA will be reputed to be a nation that acts more foolishly and for no clear advantage even for ourselves. ...
... Import Certificate proposal is substantially market-driven, increases USA's GDP more than otherwise which in turn promotes increased employment and to the extent that Import certificate's global price rates exceed the federal fee rates that defray all direct federal costs of the policy, USA exported goods are indirectly but effectively price subsidized. ...
...Additionally, within the Import Certificate proposal, market-determined increases of global certificate prices are indirect but effective price subsidies for USA's exported goods.

It's true, your proposal will to some extent upset our foreign relations.
ToddsterPatriot, we should not refrain from upsetting foreign relations because our policies grant due consideration for ourselves. We're not disrespected for acting in our own best interests. I'm opposed to proposals that USA act in manners not to our own net advantage but rather as petty and foolish.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
... Won't your IC idea likewise reduce the availability of certain imported goods, making them unavailable to some USA consumers? ...

ToddsterPatriot, no, not to the extent you wish to imply.
What extent did I wish to imply? ...
ToddsterPatriot, you're implying that many items now being imported would no longer be available from both foreign or domestic producers, or if they are available, they would be price prohibitive to such USA consumers that now purchase such items. The Import Certificate policy is unlike the Banana policy that would effectively make imported bananas unavailable and domestic bananas only available to the extent that they're produced at a price to satisfy USA's effective demand.

The Import certificate policy would make imported bananas less available. The extent of import's availability is dependent upon the global price rate of Import Certificates, imported price comparisons to domestic produced bananas, and USA consumers' preferences. (For further explanation, refer to post #43).

It's conceivable that both policies would be unable to satisfy USA's price demands and USA consumers would get no bananas, but within the Import Certificate policy, in regard to all or almost all items currently being imported, USA consumers would get imported and/or domestically produced products.

Within the Import Certificate policy, the price rates of certificates are not expected to be prohibitive. It's expected there'd be little or no additional production of domestic bananas and imported bananas would be priced less than the domestic bananas would be under the Banana proposal. But the Import Certificate proposal would eliminate or significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, increase our GDP more than otherwise, and that increase will, in turn, increase our numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, you're implying that many items now being imported would no longer be available from both foreign or domestic producers,

Our current trade deficit was $57.6 billion in February.
Isn't the IC plan going to require importers to buy certificates from exporters?
Doesn't that reduce imports? If we import and consume 100 widgets and your plan reduces
imports to 80 widgets, aren't consumers of 20 widgets going to be out of luck?

Are the budgets for the consumers of the 80 widgets going to have more or less money to
spend on other products? Because in addition to reducing supply, your plan also increases prices.

Within the Import Certificate policy, the price rates of certificates are not expected to be prohibitive.

Prices have to rise enough to eliminate $600 billion in imports. Out of $2.3 trillion in imports.
How much will prices have to rise to do that?
 
The [Banana] proposal's not a sincere attempt to achieve a remedy; it's deliberately mischievous.

If USA banana producers cannot satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have no bananas.

If USA banana producers can satisfy USA's effective demand, USA consumers will have bananas at an increased price.

In all cases, it will not significantly improve our economy but it will to some extent upset our foreign relations. The USA will be reputed to be a nation that acts more foolishly and for no clear advantage even for ourselves. ...
... Import Certificate proposal is substantially market-driven, increases USA's GDP more than otherwise which in turn promotes increased employment and to the extent that Import certificate's global price rates exceed the federal fee rates that defray all direct federal costs of the policy, USA exported goods are indirectly but effectively price subsidized. ...
...Additionally, within the Import Certificate proposal, market-determined increases of global certificate prices are indirect but effective price subsidies for USA's exported goods.

It's true, your proposal will to some extent upset our foreign relations.
ToddsterPatriot, we should not refrain from upsetting foreign relations because our policies grant due consideration for ourselves. We're not disrespected for acting in our own best interests. I'm opposed to proposals that USA act in manners not to our own net advantage but rather as petty and foolish.

Respectfully, Supposn

We're not disrespected for acting in our own best interests.

That's why no one has been upset by our recent tariffs, right?
 
ToddsterPatriot, you're implying that many items now being imported would no longer be available from both foreign or domestic producers,

Our current trade deficit was $57.6 billion in February.
Isn't the IC plan going to require importers to buy certificates from exporters?
Doesn't that reduce imports? If we import and consume 100 widgets and your plan reduces
imports to 80 widgets, aren't consumers of 20 widgets going to be out of luck?

Are the budgets for the consumers of the 80 widgets going to have more or less money to
spend on other products? Because in addition to reducing supply, your plan also increases prices.

Within the Import Certificate policy, the price rates of certificates are not expected to be prohibitive.

Prices have to rise enough to eliminate $600 billion in imports. Out of $2.3 trillion in imports.
How much will prices have to rise to do that?
ToddsterPatriot, within USA's import Certificate environment, importers will continue to bring in as many goods as they're able to sell at the price increases due to Import Certificate policy. But due to the necessity of importers to acquire Import Certificates and increased prices of imported goods, there are many consequential changes:

Let us suppose a USA exported product's sales are poor because they're less price competitive. Because exporter's sell both USA products and Import certificates, they can in effect reduce their prices for exported USA goods with no net loss of revenue or profit; (i.e. USA can produce additional goods for export).

There are many products we do not produce because the imported product is marginally less expensive. Due to increased prices to USA Import purchasers, it may now be possible to producie many of those products in the USA at competitive prices;(USA can soon produce more goods and reduce our imports).

Due to the increased prices of imports (that currently are severely crowding our USA products), USA producers will gain greater shares of those USA marketplaces; (i.e. increasing USA's production and reducing our trade deficit more than otherwise).

Due to USA adopting the policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article, we'd significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate our annual trade deficits of goods more than otherwise. Due to that policy, Our GDP will be greater than otherwise and the increased GDP will boost our numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
ToddsterPatriot, you're implying that many items now being imported would no longer be available from both foreign or domestic producers,

Our current trade deficit was $57.6 billion in February.
Isn't the IC plan going to require importers to buy certificates from exporters?
Doesn't that reduce imports? If we import and consume 100 widgets and your plan reduces
imports to 80 widgets, aren't consumers of 20 widgets going to be out of luck?

Are the budgets for the consumers of the 80 widgets going to have more or less money to
spend on other products? Because in addition to reducing supply, your plan also increases prices.

Within the Import Certificate policy, the price rates of certificates are not expected to be prohibitive.

Prices have to rise enough to eliminate $600 billion in imports. Out of $2.3 trillion in imports.
How much will prices have to rise to do that?
ToddsterPatriot, within USA's import Certificate environment, importers will continue to bring in as many goods as they're able to sell at the price increases due to Import Certificate policy. But due to the necessity of importers to acquire Import Certificates and increased prices of imported goods, there are many consequential changes:

Let us suppose a USA exported product's sales are poor because they're less price competitive. Because exporter's sell both USA products and Import certificates, they can in effect reduce their prices for exported USA goods with no net loss of revenue or profit; (i.e. USA can produce additional goods for export).

There are many products we do not produce because the imported product is marginally less expensive. Due to increased prices to USA Import purchasers, it may now be possible to producie many of those products in the USA at competitive prices;(USA can soon produce more goods and reduce our imports).

Due to the increased prices of imports (that currently are severely crowding our USA products), USA producers will gain greater shares of those USA marketplaces; (i.e. increasing USA's production and reducing our trade deficit more than otherwise).

Due to USA adopting the policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article, we'd significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate our annual trade deficits of goods more than otherwise. Due to that policy, Our GDP will be greater than otherwise and the increased GDP will boost our numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Let us suppose a USA exported product's sales are poor because they're less price competitive. Because exporter's sell both USA products and Import certificates, they can in effect reduce their prices for exported USA goods with no net loss of revenue or profit; (i.e. USA can produce additional goods for export)....Due to the increased prices of imports (that currently are severely crowding our USA products), USA producers will gain greater shares of those USA marketplaces;

That is an excellent idea!!
We should strive to make the goods we purchase more expensive while making those we sell less expensive.
 
Let us suppose a USA exported product's sales are poor because they're less price competitive. Because exporter's sell both USA products and Import certificates, they can in effect reduce their prices for exported USA goods with no net loss of revenue or profit; (i.e. USA can produce additional goods for export)....Due to the increased prices of imports (that currently are severely crowding our USA products), USA producers will gain greater shares of those USA marketplaces;

That is an excellent idea!!
We should strive to make the goods we purchase more expensive while making those we sell less expensive.
ToddsterPatriot, we should produce more and increase our products proportion of the goods we consume. Import Certificate policy would accomplish that. Increasing export sales would be desirable.

Import Certificate's global prices are entirely passed on as price increases to USA import purchasers. Beyond those portions of certificate prices attributable to direct federal Import Certificate policy expenditures, are attributable to markets' behaviors.
Market-determined portions of Import Certificate prices are indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exports.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Let us suppose a USA exported product's sales are poor because they're less price competitive. Because exporter's sell both USA products and Import certificates, they can in effect reduce their prices for exported USA goods with no net loss of revenue or profit; (i.e. USA can produce additional goods for export)....Due to the increased prices of imports (that currently are severely crowding our USA products), USA producers will gain greater shares of those USA marketplaces;

That is an excellent idea!!
We should strive to make the goods we purchase more expensive while making those we sell less expensive.
ToddsterPatriot, we should produce more and increase our products proportion of the goods we consume. Import Certificate policy would accomplish that. Increasing export sales would be desirable.

Import Certificate's global prices are entirely passed on as price increases to USA import purchasers. Beyond those portions of certificate prices attributable to direct federal Import Certificate policy expenditures, are attributable to markets' behaviors.
Market-determined portions of Import Certificate prices are indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exports.

Respectfully, Supposn

Exactly!

We should strive to make the goods we purchase more expensive while making those we sell less expensive.

Import Certificate's global prices are entirely passed on as price increases to USA import purchasers.

And as price increases to purchasers of equivalent domestic goods.
 
We're not disrespected for acting in our own best interests.

That's why no one has been upset by our recent tariffs, right?[/QUOTE
(This appears as a quote de to software problem).
ToddsterPatriot, We shouldn't be particularly concerned about upsetting other nations if what we're doing is justifiable, and in our opinion is for a desirable purpose. There's a difference between others being upset or others disrespecting us.

If other nation's disrespected us for acting against what they believed to be contrary to their interests. We shouldn't alter our policy if we believe our actions are justifiable, and the correct action to take.
But if we act foolishly and contrary to our own best interests, regardless of others opinions we should remedy our policies.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
We're not disrespected for acting in our own best interests.

That's why no one has been upset by our recent tariffs, right?[/QUOTE}
ToddsterPatriot, We shouldn't be particularly concerned about upsetting other nations if what we're doing is justifiable, and in our opinion is for a desirable purpose. There's a difference between others being upset or others disrespecting us.

If other nation's disrespected us for acting against what they believed to be contrary to their interests. We shouldn't alter our policy if we believe our actions are justifiable, and the correct action to take.
But if we act foolishly and contrary to our own best interests, regardless of others opinions we should remedy our policies.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, We shouldn't be particularly concerned about upsetting other nations if what we're doing is justifiable, and in our opinion is for a desirable purpose.

So it's okay to upset them with your IC proposal but not okay to upset them for my banana proposal?

Your lack of consistency on this issue is troubling.
 
Exactly! We must grow our own bananas.
Because the jobs created to grow bananas, even if they would cost $5 each,
more than make up for the reduction in our standard of living that would result.
Pure Trumpian STUPIDITY!
The smart trading country will produce what it makes most efficiently and trade that for the bananas thus getting more bananas per resource.
 
We're not disrespected for acting in our own best interests.

That's why no one has been upset by our recent tariffs, right?
ToddsterPatriot, We shouldn't be particularly concerned about upsetting other nations if what we're doing is justifiable, and in our opinion is for a desirable purpose. There's a difference between others being upset or others disrespecting us.

If other nation's disrespected us for acting against what they believed to be contrary to their interests. We shouldn't alter our policy if we believe our actions are justifiable, and the correct action to take.
But if we act foolishly and contrary to our own best interests, regardless of others opinions we should remedy our policies.
Respectfully, Supposn
So it's okay to upset them with your IC proposal but not okay to upset them for my banana proposal?

Your lack of consistency on this issue is troubling.
ToddsterPatriot, there's no inconsistency. Respectfully, Supposn
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top