USA goods could be competitively priced

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, if the USA adopted the Import Certificate policy, the exporters of USA goods may request (all or any of their particular export shipments be to federally assessed and they will pay the assessment fees.

The total federal assessment fees paid by those exporters for their individual export shipments include an additional fee if they accept the federal assessment amount and the IC (with face-amount equal to that amount) that will be issued to them. If they do not agree, no IC will be issued for that particular export shipment.

Those and any additional expenses due to their handling the IC certificates are the exporters' total costs for acquiring the ICs.

ICs are transferable. The global market values of the ICs are market determined and are passed on within the prices to USA purchases of imported goods. Those markets rather than government determined additions to prices of ICs are not due to the IC policy itself.

Foreign purchasers of USA's exported goods can expect or negotiate reduced prices based upon the differences between global markets' IC prices and exporters' costs for acquiring those ICs. It is the global market prices of ICs rather than the price subsidy of USA exports, that account for the entire increased prices to USA purchasers due to IC policy.

What's effectively a price subsidy of USA's exports, does not cause increased prices to USA purchasers.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Personally, if I'm making a product in the US and the government suddenly makes my foreign competition more expensive, I'm going to raise my prices.

What would you do in that situation?

Toddsterpatriot, I would purchase shares of USA producing enterprises competing with your company. They're all going to eat your lunch.

Why? They aren't going to raise their prices too?

No, I believe they'd prefer greater immediate and future increasing their net profits by increasing their sales and shares of their markets, while due to economies of scale, they'll be reducing their per unit production costs.

Respectfully, Supposn

You apparently don't recognize or don't share my appreciation for advantages due to independent competitive participants in competitive market-places.

But I do! You just made a portion of the supply....less competitive.

Yes, importers are to some extent less competitive but your USA competitors are stronger than before.

Respectfully, Supposn

If USA adopted the Import Certificate, (IC) policy, what's an effectively a price subsidy of USA's exports, occurs at no apparent additional cost to anyone.

The additional cost is the higher price paid by consumers of imported goods. Not to mention the deadweight loss imposed by the higher domestic prices of like goods.

The global market prices of Import certificates are additions embedded within imported goods prices to USA purchasers.

The differences between global markets' IC prices and exporters expenses due to acquiring and handling ICs, are positively related to the USA goods price discounts that foreign purchasers can expect or negotiate.

Other than for imported components, the Import Certificate policy does not add a penny to the prices of USA goods in any markets.

Respectfully, Supposn

I believe they'd prefer greater immediate and future increasing their net profits by increasing their sales and shares of their markets,

It's quicker, easier and more profitable to just raise prices on current sales.

Yes, importers are to some extent less competitive but your USA competitors are stronger than before.

Sure. They can raise prices to increase profit.

The global market prices of Import certificates are additions embedded within imported goods prices to USA purchasers.

Yes. You've given foreigners lower prices and raised prices for Americans.

Other than for imported components, the Import Certificate policy does not add a penny to the prices of USA goods in any markets.

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive.

 

[Econ4Every1]

Here we get to the flaw in your thinking.

If the government creates $1 and offers it for 1 widget and the private sector supplies the widget for $1, then the purchasing power of the dollar=1 widget. If the government creates another dollar and wants to buy another widget, will the second widget cost more? ...

Econ4Every1, we're off topic. If you wish to continue discussing the value of the U.S. dollar, please open another thread and I'll respond to you there.
I read no further than the quoted paragraph. I prefer to believe you have a real and logical concept to discuss.

I'm not upset by your theoretical widget, but rather the idea that because the government is able to buy widgets at $1 per widget, that necessarily determines the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar or indicates that I, an individual will be able to purchase only one single widget for only one dollar.

I'll try to keep looking for your thread regarding the value of the U.S. dollar.

Respectfully, Supposn

My reply is completely relevant to your post. You believe that trade deficits are a detriment to the economy.

Would you agree that the problem of trade deficits is that when foreign interests acquire US dollars and save them, those dollars no longer circulate inside the US economy? This, in turn, reduces demand.

So my question is, for every dollar that leaves the US economy, why can't the US government create and spend one to replace it?

 

[Supposn]

My reply is completely relevant to your post. You believe that trade deficits are a detriment to the economy.

Would you agree that the problem of trade deficits is that when foreign interests acquire US dollars and save them, those dollars no longer circulate inside the US economy? This, in turn, reduces demand.

So my question is, for every dollar that leaves the US economy, why can't the US government create and spend one to replace it?

Econ4Every1, I do not agree that the policies determined by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board are among the primary causes or could be among the primary solutions to USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.
If you wish to discuss their policies further, please start a thread devoted to that topic and I'll respond to you there.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive.

Toddsterpatriot, I don't have, and I expect some difficulty finding VALID data relative to USA produced vehicles prices since 1950.
.
You cannot simply cite consumer price index because vehicles over the years have greatly increased expensive additional or improved components and accessories Comparisons of medical costs or of vehicle costs since 1950 are not VALID “apples to apples” comparisons.
.
Some accessories and improvements began as optional accessories such as automatic but soon became standard equipment. I don't recall if automatic braking was ever an “optional” feature on any particular models? Air conditioning if now not standard, are effectively standard if you ever expect to trade in or resell your car to obtain a newer model. Other features, such as GPS may or may not have yet reached that point. What links do you have to support your argument?
.
Unless you can provide some evidence that includes consideration for the significant differences in vehicles over the years, I doubt your contention.
.
I'd like to see some data regarding Harley-Davis over the years prior to their being rescued by the Reagan administration.
I suspect Harley-Davis prior to the rescue, then greatly needed price increases; but due to foreign competition they could not then enact them. In that case, greatly increased prices may be less of a boon and more of a financial necessity. Their then current prices may not have been sustainable if they were to remain in business.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive.

Toddsterpatriot, I don't have, and I expect some difficulty finding VALID data relative to USA produced vehicles prices since 1950.
.
You cannot simply cite consumer price index because vehicles over the years have greatly increased expensive additional or improved components and accessories Comparisons of medical costs or of vehicle costs since 1950 are not VALID “apples to apples” comparisons.
.
Some accessories and improvements began as optional accessories such as automatic but soon became standard equipment. I don't recall if automatic braking was ever an “optional” feature on any particular models? Air conditioning if now not standard, are effectively standard if you ever expect to trade in or resell your car to obtain a newer model. Other features, such as GPS may or may not have yet reached that point. What links do you have to support your argument?
.
Unless you can provide some evidence that includes consideration for the significant differences in vehicles over the years, I doubt your contention.
.
I'd like to see some data regarding Harley-Davis over the years prior to their being rescued by the Reagan administration.
I suspect Harley-Davis prior to the rescue, then greatly needed price increases; but due to foreign competition they could not then enact them. In that case, greatly increased prices may be less of a boon and more of a financial necessity. Their then current prices may not have been sustainable if they were to remain in business.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

Consider that the administration has done the following:

-- Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports at 1.68 million vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports. Two years later the level was permitted to rise to 1.85 million.(33) Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution found that the import limits have actually cost jobs in the U.S. auto industry by making it possible for the sheltered American automakers to raise prices and limit production. In 1984, Winston writes in Blind Intersection? Policy and the Automobile Industry, 32,000 jobs were lost, U.S. production fell by 300,000 units, and profits for U.S. firms increased $8.9 billion. The quotas have also made the Japanese firms potentially more formidable rivals because they have begun building assembly plants in the United States.(34) They also shifted production to larger cars, introducing to American firms competition they did not have before the quotas were created. In 1984, it was estimated that higher prices for domestic and imported cars cost consumers $2.2 billion a year.(35) At the height of the dollar's exchange rate with the yen in 1984-85, the quotas were costing American consumers the equivalent of $11 billion a year.(36)

https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.pdf

 

[Econ4Every1]

My reply is completely relevant to your post. You believe that trade deficits are a detriment to the economy.

Would you agree that the problem of trade deficits is that when foreign interests acquire US dollars and save them, those dollars no longer circulate inside the US economy? This, in turn, reduces demand.

So my question is, for every dollar that leaves the US economy, why can't the US government create and spend one to replace it?

Econ4Every1, I do not agree that the policies determined by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board are among the primary causes or could be among the primary solutions to USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.
If you wish to discuss their policies further, please start a thread devoted to that topic and I'll respond to you there.

Respectfully, Supposn

With respect, it has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Board.

It's all relevant to what you are saying here, I don't need to start a new topic. You're trying to solve a problem with IC's that exists because we enjoy a higher standard of living. This is true because we are exporting something, dollars, and importing things of real value in return. IC's would seek to limit the number of things of real value that US resellers import.

In theory, you want that stuff made here, but the US workforce cannot supply the demands of the US economy without a drastic increase in prices which would cause a decrease in our standard of living as our households and businesses try to adjust to the changes. It will also create a massive black market for goods that avoid the IC's, something that, like most other things, the wealthy will be able to leverage more so than the poor.

If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but I'm not sure why you made this thread if you don't want to discuss.

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, I agree that USA manufacturers are less able to raise their prices due to competing imported or domestic products.
.
Enterprises, (when they can), will increase their prices to achieve greater profits, and adequately fund: recovery of their investment costs, and maintaining and updating their production equipment and methods, and seeking improved methods and products. To the extent enterprises cannot adequately fund expenses to remain competitive, competing enterprises within the enterprises own industry or alternative industries will shove underfunded enterprises out of their markets.

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive.

Your contending when imported competition was reduced, the price increases of USA manufactures were primarily profit boons rather than funding expenditure for these other mentioned purposes.​

Toddsterpatriot, I don't have, and I expect some difficulty finding VALID data relative to USA produced vehicles prices since 1950.
You cannot simply cite consumer price index because vehicles over the years have greatly increased expensive additional or improved components and accessories Comparisons of medical costs or of vehicle costs since 1950 are not VALID “apples to apples” comparisons.

Your responding link from CATO supports their agenda promoting “pure” free trade, and discusses the Reagan administration's enacted tariffs and restrictions upon some foreign trade, but it doesn't get into the “weeds” of any USA manufacturers' price increases extents, purposes, or justifications.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

My reply is completely relevant to your post. You believe that trade deficits are a detriment to the economy.

Would you agree that the problem of trade deficits is that when foreign interests acquire US dollars and save them, those dollars no longer circulate inside the US economy? This, in turn, reduces demand.

So my question is, for every dollar that leaves the US economy, why can't the US government create and spend one to replace it?

Econ4Every1, I do not agree that the policies determined by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board are among the primary causes or could be among the primary solutions to USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.
If you wish to discuss their policies further, please start a thread devoted to that topic and I'll respond to you there.

The Import Certificate policy limits the value of the USA's imports of goods to the values of our exported goods. Why do you contend that the USA is incapable of accomplishing that? Whatever the increased cost of our imported goods would be, it's of less economic harm than our chronic annual trade deficits of goods detrimental effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.
You perceive no relationship between USA's GDP, numbers of jobs, median wage, living standards?
IC policy's purpose for reducing our annual trade deficits of goods is to increase our GDP, numbers of jobs, and the purchasing power of our median wage. Those are all critical to USA's living standards. Printing more dollars reduces the value of each existing and additional dollar.
If you believe that your dollars are unreal, trade them in for silver and gold.
The U.S. dollar's value is due to the dollar's purchasing power. Everything you're discussing is greatly influenced if not determined by the Federal Reserve Board which does not govern USA's global trade policies. I concur with the overwhelming majority of economists that contend that printing more dollars reduces their value and is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, I agree that USA manufacturers are less able to raise their prices due to competing imported or domestic products.
.
Enterprises, (when they can), will increase their prices to achieve greater profits, and adequately fund: recovery of their investment costs, and maintaining and updating their production equipment and methods, and seeking improved methods and products. To the extent enterprises cannot adequately fund expenses to remain competitive, competing enterprises within the enterprises own industry or alternative industries will shove underfunded enterprises out of their markets.

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive.

Your contending when imported competition was reduced, the price increases of USA manufactures were primarily profit boons rather than funding expenditure for these other mentioned purposes.​

Toddsterpatriot, I don't have, and I expect some difficulty finding VALID data relative to USA produced vehicles prices since 1950.
You cannot simply cite consumer price index because vehicles over the years have greatly increased expensive additional or improved components and accessories Comparisons of medical costs or of vehicle costs since 1950 are not VALID “apples to apples” comparisons.

Your responding link from CATO supports their agenda promoting “pure” free trade, and discusses the Reagan administration's enacted tariffs and restrictions upon some foreign trade, but it doesn't get into the “weeds” of any USA manufacturers' price increases extents, purposes, or justifications.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your contending when imported competition was reduced, the price increases of USA manufactures were primarily profit boons rather than funding expenditure for these other mentioned purposes.

No matter what they did with the government provided windfall, it was a government provided windfall.

Your contending when imported competition was reduced, the price increases of USA manufactures were primarily profit boons rather than funding expenditure for these other mentioned purposes.

Weeds? Did US manufacturers raise prices when tariffs or quotas were enacted?

Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports at 1.68 million vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports. Two years later the level was permitted to rise to 1.85 million.(33) Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution found that the import limits have actually cost jobs in the U.S. auto industry by making it possible for the sheltered American automakers to raise prices and limit production. In 1984, Winston writes in Blind Intersection? Policy and the Automobile Industry, 32,000 jobs were lost, U.S. production fell by 300,000 units, and profits for U.S. firms increased $8.9 billion.

If they made 300,000 fewer units, the $8.9 billion increase in profit must have been a result of higher prices.

Do you agree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My reply is completely relevant to your post. You believe that trade deficits are a detriment to the economy.

Would you agree that the problem of trade deficits is that when foreign interests acquire US dollars and save them, those dollars no longer circulate inside the US economy? This, in turn, reduces demand.

So my question is, for every dollar that leaves the US economy, why can't the US government create and spend one to replace it?

Econ4Every1, I do not agree that the policies determined by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board are among the primary causes or could be among the primary solutions to USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.
If you wish to discuss their policies further, please start a thread devoted to that topic and I'll respond to you there.

The Import Certificate policy limits the value of the USA's imports of goods to the values of our exported goods. Why do you contend that the USA is incapable of accomplishing that? Whatever the increased cost of our imported goods would be, it's of less economic harm than our chronic annual trade deficits of goods detrimental effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.
You perceive no relationship between USA's GDP, numbers of jobs, median wage, living standards?
IC policy's purpose for reducing our annual trade deficits of goods is to increase our GDP, numbers of jobs, and the purchasing power of our median wage. Those are all critical to USA's living standards. Printing more dollars reduces the value of each existing and additional dollar.
If you believe that your dollars are unreal, trade them in for silver and gold.
The U.S. dollar's value is due to the dollar's purchasing power. Everything you're discussing is greatly influenced if not determined by the Federal Reserve Board which does not govern USA's global trade policies. I concur with the overwhelming majority of economists that contend that printing more dollars reduces their value and is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

IC policy's purpose for reducing our annual trade deficits of goods is to increase our GDP, numbers of jobs, and the purchasing power of our median wage. Those are all critical to USA's living standards.

Raising the cost of foreign and domestic goods will decrease the purchasing power of wages and reduce our standard of living.

 

[Econ4Every1]

The Import Certificate policy limits the value of the USA's imports of goods to the values of our exported goods. Why do you contend that the USA is incapable of accomplishing that?

Where did I make that contention?

Whatever the increased cost of our imported goods would be, it's of less economic harm than our chronic annual trade deficits of goods detrimental effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.

I'm saying that there is a better alternative and that even if you are right about everything you just said, I'm saying that it's possible to have increased GDP and decreased trade deficit and still have a decreased quality of life for the average person.

Look at China, how has their massive export economy helped the average person? If your contention is correct, China should be the best place in the world to be, yet their largest cities are choked by thick smog, factory workers work in deplorable conditions and most of the benefits of Chian's embrace of capitalism have gone to the top few percent.

You perceive no relationship between USA's GDP, numbers of jobs, median wage, living standards?

Your presumption is that the median wage and living standards would rise as a result of a decreased trade deficit. Can you show me a chart that correlates trade deficits to something that would lend evidence to your position?

RIght now the economy is "improving" yet the most recent numbers I've seen show a growing trade deficit. Please explain?

The rest of those things could increase without an increase in the standard of living.

What I'm saying there is a better way to achieve your goal of "GDP, numbers of jobs, median wage, living standards?".

If you believe that your dollars are unreal, trade them in for silver and gold.

Huh? Where did I say that?

The U.S. dollar's value is due to the dollar's purchasing power.

Fundamentally untrue. The dollar's value comes from the supply of goods and services that people need and want that dollars can buy relitive to how money of the dollars the average person can aquire with an average day's work.

Purchasing power is only part of the equation, the other part is how many dollars are paid on average. In other words, if purchasing power declined by 50% over 20 years, but median income increased by 75% then most people (depending government policies I won't get into here) are better off even if the purchasing power of the dollar has declined.

Everything you're discussing is greatly influenced if not determined by the Federal Reserve Board which does not govern USA's global trade policies.

The Fed manages monetary policy, budget decisions, fiscal policy, are handled by Congress and the Treasury.

I concur with the overwhelming majority of economists that contend that printing more dollars reduces their value and is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

A non-specific argument from authority. It's wrong, its an econ 101 understanding of how the economy works and it would be reasonably simple to explain why the number of dollars created is only part of how you determine the value of a dollar.

If you want to continue to insist your right and you don't want to consider that the fundamentals that your argument are based on are, IMO, flawed, that's cool, but then, I don't know what you posted this on a debate site if you're just going to claim your correct.

-Cheers

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Import Certificate policy limits the value of the USA's imports of goods to the values of our exported goods. Why do you contend that the USA is incapable of accomplishing that?

Where did I make that contention?

Whatever the increased cost of our imported goods would be, it's of less economic harm than our chronic annual trade deficits of goods detrimental effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.

I'm saying that there is a better alternative and that even if you are right about everything you just said, I'm saying that it's possible to have increased GDP and decreased trade deficit and still have a decreased quality of life for the average person.

Look at China, how has their massive export economy helped the average person? If your contention is correct, China should be the best place in the world to be, yet their largest cities are choked by thick smog, factory workers work in deplorable conditions and most of the benefits of Chian's embrace of capitalism have gone to the top few percent.

You perceive no relationship between USA's GDP, numbers of jobs, median wage, living standards?

Your presumption is that the median wage and living standards would rise as a result of a decreased trade deficit. Can you show me a chart that correlates trade deficits to something that would lend evidence to your position?

RIght now the economy is "improving" yet the most recent numbers I've seen show a growing trade deficit. Please explain?

The rest of those things could increase without an increase in the standard of living.

What I'm saying there is a better way to achieve your goal of "GDP, numbers of jobs, median wage, living standards?".

If you believe that your dollars are unreal, trade them in for silver and gold.

Huh? Where did I say that?

The U.S. dollar's value is due to the dollar's purchasing power.

Fundamentally untrue. The dollar's value comes from the supply of goods and services that people need and want that dollars can buy relitive to how money of the dollars the average person can aquire with an average day's work.

Purchasing power is only part of the equation, the other part is how many dollars are paid on average. In other words, if purchasing power declined by 50% over 20 years, but median income increased by 75% then most people (depending government policies I won't get into here) are better off even if the purchasing power of the dollar has declined.

Everything you're discussing is greatly influenced if not determined by the Federal Reserve Board which does not govern USA's global trade policies.

The Fed manages monetary policy, budget decisions, fiscal policy, are handled by Congress and the Treasury.

I concur with the overwhelming majority of economists that contend that printing more dollars reduces their value and is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

A non-specific argument from authority. It's wrong, its an econ 101 understanding of how the economy works and it would be reasonably simple to explain why the number of dollars created is only part of how you determine the value of a dollar.

If you want to continue to insist your right and you don't want to consider that the fundamentals that your argument are based on are, IMO, flawed, that's cool, but then, I don't know what you posted this on a debate site if you're just going to claim your correct.

-Cheers

I'm saying that there is a better alternative and that even if you are right about everything you just said, I'm saying that it's possible to have increased GDP and decreased trade deficit and still have a decreased quality of life for the average person.

 

[Supposn]

... As far as the effect on GDP, why can't the government increase the yearly deficit by $300 billion per year and spend that money fixing infrastructure? Paying for healthcare and helping people go to college and graduate without $100k in debt? Wouldn't that increase GDP? ...

Econ4Every1, You realize with interest that's a gross cost exceeding 3 trillion dollars over the decade? I don't know that we could have done that. Republicans are struggling to keep the expected net deficit due to their tax bill from exceeding 1.5 trillion over the decade's annual federal budgets. But their figure's net and your's (I suppose) would be gross federal budget costs before increased tax revenues are reflected within the annual federal budgets.

State delegates to what became the USA’s constitutional convention of 1787 understood that some states had commercial advantages over other states. (At that time, people and their state's delegates' allegiances were more for their states and less for a national government. Despite that, they were able to negotiate a constitutional agreement for absolutely supreme federal jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce. They negotiated for the advantaged states to relinquish their advantages for the good of the nation.

Those advantaged states that agreed to accept the new federal government, did grudgingly accept an reduction of their individual then current economies.
My primary allegiance is to the USA. Unlike those constitutional delegates, I'm currently opposed to accepting lesser economy for my nation. I'm opposed to sacrificing the finances of USA's wage-earning families on behalf of the global economy.

I'm a proponent of federal government's promoting the general welfare as stated within the preamble of the U.S. Constitution). That's why I'm a proponent of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. Additionally, I'm a proponent of internet neutrality, federal promotion of public infrastructures, communication, and transportation systems.

Prior to Republicans' decision to hinder President Obama's administrations from accomplishing anything, the major party's had generally agreed upon the issue federal promotion for public infrastructures.

I'm to some extent generally in agreement with this following excerpt. I consider the Import Certificate concept (granting government minimum discretion of policy effecting goods prices), to be superior to the concept of tariffs.

Excerpted from: https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-American-Civil-War-fought

One of the most underappreciated aspects of economics is how much it shapes culture and politics. Let’s start with politics. As a Northern capitalist who wanted to invest in manufacturing, the worst thing that could happen from your perspective would be for the local marketplace to be flooded with goods manufactured abroad. What you wanted was for a system that would keep foreign goods more expensive than local ones, which you could achieve with a tax on foreign imports: a tariff. The other thing you would want, in order to decrease your costs, was for the government to invest in what was at the time called internal improvements: roads, bridges, canals, and railroads. This would facilitate commerce by reducing the costs and times of transportation. Goods could be carried farther, faster, and cheaper. More people could afford those goods. And producers would have an incentive to augment production. This would have a stimulative effect on the economy as a whole, as the businesses that supplied the manufactures would also grow.

 

[Supposn]

Your presumption is that the median wage and living standards would rise as a result of a decreased trade deficit. Can you show me a chart that correlates trade deficits to something that would lend evidence to your position?

Econ4Every1, I consider what you describe as my presumption, to be my logical argument. What facts and/or logical arguments do you find to refute my contentions?
I have seen graph and charts that would please proponents of pure free trade. They all indicate that USA's trade deficits move in tandem with USA's GDP.
USA imported goods volumes depend upon imported goods sales within USA's domestic markets and generally when our economy goes south, sales volumes within our domestic markets do the same.
.
I do not have charts to confirm the trade deficit's effects upon their nation's GDP because the charts do not confirm which is the cause and which is affected. I recalled reading “How to lie with statistics” more than a half century ago. I just googled it and was pleased to learn the 141 page book is available as a free PDF. I suppose you can also find it through your public library.

http://faculty.neu.edu.cn/cc/zhangyf/papers/How-to-Lie-with-Statistics.pdf
.​

There's the conventional and generally accepted expenditure formula that defines what is GDP. That formula determines trade nations' global trade net balances reduce and trade surplus nations' net balances increase their nation's GDP. Doubts that you have expressed are not refuting logic or evidence.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

The Import Certificate policy limits the value of the USA's imports of goods to the values of our exported goods. Why do you contend that the USA is incapable of accomplishing that?

Where did I make that contention?

I presume that you when you state I “ want that stuff made here”, you understood that I'm opposed to the USA tolerating annual trade deficits of goods, the Import Certificate policy I'm a proponent of is not applicable to a list of specific scarce or precious mineral materials integral within globally traded goods and it is not a commercial isolationist policy. It could not prevent any type of item to be imported if there's an effective USA demand for that item.
Yet you posted this:

In theory, you want that stuff made here, but the US workforce cannot supply the demands of the US economy without a drastic increase in prices which would cause a decrease in our standard of living as our households and businesses try to adjust to the changes. It will also create a massive black market for goods that avoid the IC's, something that, like most other things, the wealthy will be able to leverage more so than the poor.

Again I ask, how did you arrive at these conclusions?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... RIght now the economy is "improving" yet the most recent numbers I've seen show a growing trade deficit. Please explain?
.
The rest of those things could increase without an increase in the standard of living. ...

Econ4Every1, USA's annual trade deficits have always been to the net detriment of our GDP and I'm aware of no nation where this is also not true.
Regardless of the nation's economic condition, (i.e. in richer or poorer economic times), the nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to experiencing an annual trade deficit. Unless a nation has full employment, anything net detrimental to the nation's annual GDP is net detrimental to the nation's numbers of jobs.
.
Our higher wage rates and free trade are inducements for our chronic annual trade deficits.
.
Although we all benefit somewhat from cheaper imported goods, they do not compensate for our trade deficit's effect upon our GDP and numbers of jobs. And that burden is greater borne by employees and their dependents.
.
The analogy between nations and individuals is similar to individuals lighting cigars with their nation's currency. Only the wealthy can afford the practice; wealthier people can do it more often with greater denominations of currency bills; regardless of the person's financial condition, it's detrimental to their condition.
.
No nation can net benefit from their annual trade deficits but depending upon circumstances some imports are of less detriment than others. If a nation imports materials and tools in order to increase their production of goods and services, it is of less detriment than simply consuming foreign services and finished goods.
.
Nations do many things that increase or decrease their GDPs. Annual trade deficits are a net detriment to their nation's GDP but the balance of trade alone doesn't determine USA's or any other nations annual GDP.
USA can enact other improvements to additionally improve our GDP.
We can enact the Import Certificate policy, significantly reduce or eliminate our trade deficits of goods, but be foolish regarding other things and thus do net harm our nation. Regardless of whatever else we do or fail to do, an Import Certificate trade policy would (more than otherwise) be of benefit to our nation that otherwise experiences annual trade deficits of goods.
.
If we were improving to the point that we were approaching to be a trade surplus of goods nation, congressional-executive agreements could suspend the requirement for importers to surrender Import Certificates until a time when we should ever again revert to being a trade deficit of goods nation.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive. ... Consider that the administration has done the following:

-- Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports at 1.68 million vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports. Two years later the level was permitted to rise to 1.85 million.(33) Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution found that the import limits have actually cost jobs in the U.S. auto industry by making it possible for the sheltered American automakers to raise prices and limit production. In 1984, Winston writes in Blind Intersection? Policy and the Automobile Industry, 32,000 jobs were lost, U.S. production fell by 300,000 units, and profits for U.S. firms increased $8.9 billion. The quotas have also made the Japanese firms potentially more formidable rivals because they have begun building assembly plants in the United States.(34) They also shifted production to larger cars, introducing to American firms competition they did not have before the quotas were created. In 1984, it was estimated that higher prices for domestic and imported cars cost consumers $2.2 billion a year.(35) At the height of the dollar's exchange rate with the yen in 1984-85, the quotas were costing American consumers the equivalent of $11 billion a year.(36)

https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.pdf

ToddsterPatriot, CATO's contention is Japanese manufacturers were innocent independent competitive participants within USA's domestic market prior to President Reagan administration's reducing Japanese vehicles permitted to enter the USA. No one denies prices within the USA increased when these import restrictions were enacted.

When Japanese lower priced vehicles being permitted into the USA was reduced, CATO alleges USA vehicle manufacturers' individually did not compete to regain and increase their shares of the USA marketplace. They chose to produce lesser numbers of vehicles, higher priced vehicles and unjustifiably increased the prices of all those vehicles they did produce. CATO did not explicitly accuse, but strongly implies the price increases of USA goods were unjustified and additionally, USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws.
.
Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive markets and less confidence in CATO.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive. ... Consider that the administration has done the following:

-- Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports at 1.68 million vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports. Two years later the level was permitted to rise to 1.85 million.(33) Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution found that the import limits have actually cost jobs in the U.S. auto industry by making it possible for the sheltered American automakers to raise prices and limit production. In 1984, Winston writes in Blind Intersection? Policy and the Automobile Industry, 32,000 jobs were lost, U.S. production fell by 300,000 units, and profits for U.S. firms increased $8.9 billion. The quotas have also made the Japanese firms potentially more formidable rivals because they have begun building assembly plants in the United States.(34) They also shifted production to larger cars, introducing to American firms competition they did not have before the quotas were created. In 1984, it was estimated that higher prices for domestic and imported cars cost consumers $2.2 billion a year.(35) At the height of the dollar's exchange rate with the yen in 1984-85, the quotas were costing American consumers the equivalent of $11 billion a year.(36)

https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.pdf

ToddsterPatriot, CATO's contention is Japanese manufacturers were innocent independent competitive participants within USA's domestic market prior to President Reagan administration's reducing Japanese vehicles permitted to enter the USA. No one denies prices within the USA increased when these import restrictions were enacted.

When Japanese lower priced vehicles being permitted into the USA was reduced, CATO alleges USA vehicle manufacturers' individually did not compete to regain and increase their shares of the USA marketplace. They chose to produce lesser numbers of vehicles, higher priced vehicles and unjustifiably increased the prices of all those vehicles they did produce. CATO did not explicitly accuse, but strongly implies the price increases of USA goods were unjustified and additionally, USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws.
.
Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive markets and less confidence in CATO.

Respectfully, Supposn

No one denies prices within the USA increased when these import restrictions were enacted.

So why do you deny prices of domestic goods will increase if your IC plan is implemented?

 

[Supposn]

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive. ... Consider that the administration has done the following: ...
... https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.pdf

... When Japanese lower priced vehicles being permitted into the USA was reduced, CATO alleges USA vehicle manufacturers' individually did not compete to regain and increase their shares of the USA marketplace. They chose to produce lesser numbers of vehicles, higher priced vehicles and unjustifiably increased the prices of all those vehicles they did produce. CATO did not explicitly accuse, but strongly implies the price increases of USA goods were unjustified and additionally, USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws.
Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive markets and less confidence in CATO.

So why do you deny prices of domestic goods will increase if your IC plan is implemented?

Toddsterpatriot, I'm assuming what CATO published is true. I seem to recall something similar in the year that President Reagan rescued Harley-Davis, but I don't trust to memory.
.
Cato's implications and accusations that are not explicitly stated and are not supported by facts to indicate USA vehicles price increases were entirely or even partially due to the reduced volumes of Japanese imported vehicles.
If a USA manufacturer could produce a lower priced vehicle and capture a greater share of USA marketplaces, they would have much more profited. CATO's implied motivations for increased prices only make logical sense if (as I speculated), USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws. But CATO doesn't make such an accusation.
.
You're a long way from making a convincing argument that reducing foreign competition is a cause for otherwise unjustified price increases of products produced by USA producers competing with each other. Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive marketplaces and less confidence in CATO.
.
Respectfully, Supposn