USA goods could be competitively priced

[Toddsterpatriot]

... I'm still curious why you don't think higher domestic production of sugar is a benefit to our economy?

ToddsterPatriot, the concept of Import certificates, (ICs) does not determine the nation's proportional volumes, (i.e. the “mix”) of imported products. IC policy does not tolerate their nation experiencing annual trade deficits of goods and is not applicable to scarce or precious mineral materials. It does not discriminate among industries, products, enterprises, or foreign nations.

Unlike quotas or tariff policies, IC policy is much more market and much less government driven. To answer your specific question, IC policy does not assume that imported sugar or automobiles are more detrimental, and imported cameras or grapes are less detrimental to our nation's GDP. It doesn't assume that any particular imported goods are particularly detrimental to our GDP.

Of course increased production of USA sugar contributes to our GDP, but if it's due to government's favoring the commodity, it's as likely or more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products. Cutting off the top of the blanket to sew it back on the bottom of the blanket does not result in a longer blanket.
Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Of course increased production of USA sugar contributes to our GDP, but if it's due to government's favoring the commodity, it's as likely or more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products.

I feel the same way about your IC scheme.

 

[Supposn]

... Of course increased production of USA sugar contributes to our GDP, but if it's due to government's favoring the commodity, it's as likely or more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products. ...
... Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise. ...

ToddsterPatriot, for example in the case of foreign sugar quotas:
The farmland devoted to subsidized additional sugar would almost certainly been otherwise devoted to some other unsubsidized or less subsidized product. The Department of Agriculture's sugar subsidy program is not self-funded. Its entire net cost is detrimental to our federal budget. (I'm assuming there may be some federal fees involved within the programs). It's a net cost to all federal taxpayers and an additional cost to all other purchasers and/or users of sugar.
I would suppose that every federal agricultural commodity price control program is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

I feel the same way about your IC scheme.

ToddsterPatriot, for example?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Of course increased production of USA sugar contributes to our GDP, but if it's due to government's favoring the commodity, it's as likely or more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products. ...
... Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise. ...

ToddsterPatriot, for example in the case of foreign sugar quotas:
The farmland devoted to subsidized additional sugar would almost certainly been otherwise devoted to some other unsubsidized or less subsidized product. The Department of Agriculture's sugar subsidy program is not self-funded. Its entire net cost is detrimental to our federal budget. (I'm assuming there may be some federal fees involved within the programs). It's a net cost to all federal taxpayers and an additional cost to all other purchasers and/or users of sugar.
I would suppose that every federal agricultural commodity price control program is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

I feel the same way about your IC scheme.

ToddsterPatriot, for example?
Respectfully, Supposn

For example, you're making imported goods more expensive which allows US producers to hike domestic prices which is " more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products"

 

[Supposn]

... Of course increased production of USA sugar contributes to our GDP, but if it's due to government's favoring the commodity, it's as likely or more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products. ...
... Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise. ...

ToddsterPatriot, for example in the case of foreign sugar quotas:
The farmland devoted to subsidized additional sugar would almost certainly been otherwise devoted to some other unsubsidized or less subsidized product. The Department of Agriculture's sugar subsidy program is not self-funded. Its entire net cost is detrimental to our federal budget. (I'm assuming there may be some federal fees involved within the programs). It's a net cost to all federal taxpayers and an additional cost to all other purchasers and/or users of sugar.
I would suppose that every federal agricultural commodity price control program is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

I feel the same way about your IC scheme.

ToddsterPatriot, for example?
Respectfully, Supposn

For example, you're making imported goods more expensive which allows US producers to hike domestic prices which is " more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products"

ToddsterPatriot, all tariffs, quotas and IC policies are enacted unilaterally and (as intend), they pass on their increasing of prices to their nation's purchasers of imported goods. They better enable individual USA producers to increase their prices but they do not shield producers from the existing market conditions or from their government's legal constraints.

I'm a proponent of the policy described within Wikipedia's Import Certificates, (ICs) article. That policy would increase USA's annual GDPs and our numbers of jobs.
Assuming that it might reduce some USA goods or service products, since the policy would increase USA's annual GDP's and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, why would the reduction of some USA products be net harmful to our nation?
Please explain which products you perceive would be affected and how the IC policy would be detrimental to USA's economy? Please explicit as you're able to be.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Of course increased production of USA sugar contributes to our GDP, but if it's due to government's favoring the commodity, it's as likely or more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products. ...
... Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise. ...

ToddsterPatriot, for example in the case of foreign sugar quotas:
The farmland devoted to subsidized additional sugar would almost certainly been otherwise devoted to some other unsubsidized or less subsidized product. The Department of Agriculture's sugar subsidy program is not self-funded. Its entire net cost is detrimental to our federal budget. (I'm assuming there may be some federal fees involved within the programs). It's a net cost to all federal taxpayers and an additional cost to all other purchasers and/or users of sugar.
I would suppose that every federal agricultural commodity price control program is net detrimental to our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

I feel the same way about your IC scheme.

ToddsterPatriot, for example?
Respectfully, Supposn

For example, you're making imported goods more expensive which allows US producers to hike domestic prices which is " more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products"

ToddsterPatriot, all tariffs, quotas and IC policies are enacted unilaterally and (as intend), they pass on their increasing of prices to their nation's purchasers of imported goods. They better enable individual USA producers to increase their prices but they do not shield producers from the existing market conditions or from their government's legal constraints.

I'm a proponent of the policy described within Wikipedia's Import Certificates, (ICs) article. That policy would increase USA's annual GDPs and our numbers of jobs.
Assuming that it might reduce some USA goods or service products, since the policy would increase USA's annual GDP's and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, why would the reduction of some USA products be net harmful to our nation?
Please explain which products you perceive would be affected and how the IC policy would be detrimental to USA's economy? Please explicit as you're able to be.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

they pass on their increasing of prices to their nation's purchasers of imported goods.

Yes. Tariffs, import quotas and ICs all increase the price of imports and allow domestic producers, if any, to raise prices of domestic versions of those imports.

why would the reduction of some USA products be net harmful to our nation?

If I spend more for sugar, or automobiles, I have fewer dollars to buy other goods.
You want to know how that is net harmful to the US?

since the policy would increase USA's annual GDP's and numbers of jobs more than otherwise,

More expensive sugar has been decreasing US GDP and jobs more than otherwise.

Please explain which products you perceive would be affected

If you look back at GWB's steel tariffs, you'll remember that they helped US steel producers and
harmed US steel consumers.

 

[Supposn]

QUOTE="Supposn, post: 18943420, member: 20145"]

... Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise. ...

I feel the same way about your IC scheme.

ToddsterPatriot, for example?
Respectfully, Supposn

why would the reduction of some USA products be net harmful to our nation?

If I spend more for sugar, or automobiles, I have fewer dollars to buy other goods.
You want to know how that is net harmful to the US? ...
... If you look back at GWB's steel tariffs, you'll remember that they helped US steel producers and
harmed US steel consumers.

I'm not a proponent of tariffs or quotas or other price support methods.
I'm a proponent of the policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article because it would reduce our nation's chronic annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. It is a manner more market and less politically driven.
.
If prices of steel in the USA increased due to the Import Certificate policy, why would that be net detrimental to USA's entire economy?
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

QUOTE="Supposn, post: 18943420, member: 20145"]

... Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise. ...

I feel the same way about your IC scheme.

ToddsterPatriot, for example?
Respectfully, Supposn

why would the reduction of some USA products be net harmful to our nation?

If I spend more for sugar, or automobiles, I have fewer dollars to buy other goods.
You want to know how that is net harmful to the US? ...
... If you look back at GWB's steel tariffs, you'll remember that they helped US steel producers and
harmed US steel consumers.

I'm not a proponent of tariffs or quotas or other price support methods.
I'm a proponent of the policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article because it would reduce our nation's chronic annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. It is a manner more market and less politically driven.
.
If prices of steel in the USA increased due to the Import Certificate policy, why would that be net detrimental to USA's entire economy?
.
Respectfully, Supposn

If prices of steel in the USA increased due to the Import Certificate policy, why would that be net detrimental to USA's entire economy?

If I spend more for sugar, or automobiles or steel, I have fewer dollars to buy other goods.
... If you look back at GWB's steel tariffs, you'll remember that they helped US steel producers and
harmed US steel consumers.
You want to know how that is net detrimental to USA's entire economy?

 

[Supposn]

I'm not a proponent of tariffs or quotas or other price support methods.
I'm a proponent of the policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article because it would reduce our nation's chronic annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. It is a manner more market and less politically driven.
.
If prices of steel in the USA increased due to the Import Certificate policy, why would that be net detrimental to USA's entire economy?
.
Respectfully, Supposn

If prices of steel in the USA increased due to the Import Certificate policy, why would that be net detrimental to USA's entire economy?

If I spend more for sugar, or automobiles or steel, I have fewer dollars to buy other goods.
... If you look back at GWB's steel tariffs, you'll remember that they helped US steel producers and
harmed US steel consumers.
You want to know how that is net detrimental to USA's entire economy?

Toddsterpatriot, Import Certificate policies would effectively hinder their nation's annual imports of goods from exceeding our exports of goods. Due to an IC policy, other than assessing approximate market values of their nation's global trade cargoes, government makes no other determinations regarding in regard to global trade.

If USA imports are of greater or lesser values of Tee-shirts and/or steel, or their prices in the USA are increased due to our IC policy, how would that be net detrimental to our economy; considering that due to a USA Import Certificate policy our GDP and numbers of jobs cannot be less than otherwise?
Denying that trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's GDP is to deny a fact. Would you deny that our numbers of jobs are affected by our GDP?

Employees and their dependents are by far the greatest portion of USA's middle-income families and statistically are the entire low-income segment that's not more dependent upon public assistance. We all benefit from cheaper imports, but benefits to those employees and their dependents do not fully compensate for trade deficits detrimental effects upon their numbers of jobs that's reflected within their aggregate finances.

Enterprises within all trade policies gain no competitive advantage due to cheaper imports; (but they suffer competitive disadvantages within all trade policies if they refrain from choosing what they consider the best of “deals” available to them). They are not denied that prerogative within any trade policy I'm aware of.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not a proponent of tariffs or quotas or other price support methods.
I'm a proponent of the policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article because it would reduce our nation's chronic annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. It is a manner more market and less politically driven.
.
If prices of steel in the USA increased due to the Import Certificate policy, why would that be net detrimental to USA's entire economy?
.
Respectfully, Supposn

If prices of steel in the USA increased due to the Import Certificate policy, why would that be net detrimental to USA's entire economy?

If I spend more for sugar, or automobiles or steel, I have fewer dollars to buy other goods.
... If you look back at GWB's steel tariffs, you'll remember that they helped US steel producers and
harmed US steel consumers.
You want to know how that is net detrimental to USA's entire economy?

Toddsterpatriot, Import Certificate policies would effectively hinder their nation's annual imports of goods from exceeding our exports of goods. Due to an IC policy, other than assessing approximate market values of their nation's global trade cargoes, government makes no other determinations regarding in regard to global trade.

If USA imports are of greater or lesser values of Tee-shirts and/or steel, or their prices in the USA are increased due to our IC policy, how would that be net detrimental to our economy; considering that due to a USA Import Certificate policy our GDP and numbers of jobs cannot be less than otherwise?
Denying that trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's GDP is to deny a fact. Would you deny that our numbers of jobs are affected by our GDP?

Employees and their dependents are by far the greatest portion of USA's middle-income families and statistically are the entire low-income segment that's not more dependent upon public assistance. We all benefit from cheaper imports, but those benefits to those employees and their dependents do not fully compensate for trade deficits detrimental effects upon their numbers of jobs that's reflected within their aggregate finances.

Enterprises within all trade policies gain no competitive advantage due to cheaper imports; (but they suffer competitive disadvantages within all trade policies if they refrain from exercising choosing the best “deals” available to them). They are not denied that prerogative within any trade policy I'm aware of.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, Import Certificate policies would effectively hinder their nation's annual imports of goods from exceeding our exports of goods.

Yes, I think it will lower our standard of living as well.

how would that be net detrimental to our economy; considering that due to a USA Import Certificate policy our GDP and numbers of jobs cannot be less than otherwise?

Pretend that we apply this IC program, instead of the current quota program, to sugar.
Sugar importers need to buy certificates. This causes the price of imported sugar to rise.
Domestic producers also raise their prices in response.

Can you claim this results in an increase in our GDP? Sure.
Can I claim this results in a lower standard of living? Sure.
Can I claim this results in a loss of jobs? Sure.

Unless you have info to refute my claim, I'll remain unconvinced.

 

[Supposn]

... Pretend that we apply this IC program, instead of the current quota program, to sugar.
Sugar importers need to buy certificates. This causes the price of imported sugar to rise.
Domestic producers also raise their prices in response.

Can you claim this results in an increase in our GDP? Sure.
Can I claim this results in a lower standard of living? Sure.
Can I claim this results in a loss of jobs? Sure.

Unless you have info to refute my claim, I'll remain unconvinced.

ToddsterPatriot, Increasing or decreasing a nation's production of goods or services, modifies the nation's GDP. Sugar importers acquiring Import Certificates would not modify their nation's GDP.
The IC policy would increase USA's annual GDPs more than otherwise. How can that in itself cause reduction of our nation's living standards and/or net losses of aggregate jobs and wages?

No one denies that reducing foreign competition better enables domestic producers to increase their prices.
There are innumerable factors other than foreign competition that affect prices of goods. You have not provided a logical cause and effect supporting your contention; it would be less than logical to accept your opinion as a fact or as a logical consequence.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Pretend that we apply this IC program, instead of the current quota program, to sugar.
Sugar importers need to buy certificates. This causes the price of imported sugar to rise.
Domestic producers also raise their prices in response.

Can you claim this results in an increase in our GDP? Sure.
Can I claim this results in a lower standard of living? Sure.
Can I claim this results in a loss of jobs? Sure.

Unless you have info to refute my claim, I'll remain unconvinced.

ToddsterPatriot, Increasing or decreasing a nation's production of goods or services, modifies the nation's GDP. Sugar importers acquiring Import Certificates would not modify their nation's GDP.
The IC policy would increase USA's annual GDPs more than otherwise. How can that in itself cause reduction of our nation's living standards and/or net losses of aggregate jobs and wages?

No one denies that reducing foreign competition better enables domestic producers to increase their prices.
There are innumerable factors other than foreign competition that affect prices of goods. You have not provided a logical cause and effect supporting your contention; it would be less than logical to accept your opinion as a fact or as a logical consequence.

Respectfully, Supposn

Sugar importers acquiring Import Certificates would not modify their nation's GDP.

Here in Chicago, many local candy manufacturers have gone out of business or moved their manufacturing to Mexico or Canada, because they couldn't compete with cheaper foreign sugar.
That harmed US GDP and US jobs.

When Bush imposed steel tariffs, domestic steel producers increased production and raised prices, but domestic manufacturers who used steel were harmed.

You have to measure the benefit to producers against the harm caused to consumers.
You can't just make a blanket claim that it's automatically a benefit to US GDP or US standards of living.

Even in cases where there is no domestic production of a manufactured good, raising the price of the import still leaves US consumers with less money to buy domestic goods. Which harms US GDP and US jobs.

 

[Supposn]

Sugar importers acquiring Import Certificates would not modify their nation's GDP.

Here in Chicago, many local candy manufacturers have gone out of business or moved their manufacturing to Mexico or Canada, because they couldn't compete with cheaper foreign sugar.
That harmed US GDP and US jobs. ...

ToddsterPatriot, my discussions concern national rather than state or local GDPs.
The delegates that created our U.S. Constitution negotiated federal supreme jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce and the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that jurisdiction broadly. Although the Import Certificate policy, (as does our national commerce policy), increases USA's annual GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, it doesn't deliberately favor or disfavor any particular area in the USA.

I'm a proponent of an Import Certificate policy that applies to all USA globally traded goods in a similar manner. I'm opposed to a trade policy politically choosing to favor or disfavor any particular foreign nations, or industries, or enterprises, or particular types of goods; (but not to a fanatical extent). The disadvantages of not excluding the law's jurisdiction over the values of scarce or precious mineral materials integral within the values of cargo shipments are recognized.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sugar importers acquiring Import Certificates would not modify their nation's GDP.

Here in Chicago, many local candy manufacturers have gone out of business or moved their manufacturing to Mexico or Canada, because they couldn't compete with cheaper foreign sugar.
That harmed US GDP and US jobs. ...

ToddsterPatriot, my discussions concern national rather than state or local GDPs.
The delegates that created our U.S. Constitution negotiated federal supreme jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce and the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that jurisdiction broadly. Although the Import Certificate policy, (as does our national commerce policy), increases USA's annual GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, it doesn't deliberately favor or disfavor any particular area in the USA.

I'm a proponent of an Import Certificate policy that applies to all USA globally traded goods in a similar manner. I'm opposed to a trade policy politically choosing to favor or disfavor any particular foreign nations, or industries, or enterprises, or particular types of goods; (but not to a fanatical extent). The disadvantages of not excluding the law's jurisdiction over the values of scarce or precious mineral materials integral within the values of cargo shipments are recognized.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

my discussions concern national rather than state or local GDPs.

Mine too.

Although the Import Certificate policy, (as does our national commerce policy), increases USA's annual GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise

Your claim remains unproven.

 

[Supposn]

... You have to measure the benefit to producers against the harm caused to consumers.
You can't just make a blanket claim that it's automatically a benefit to US GDP or US standards of living.

Even in cases where there is no domestic production of a manufactured good, raising the price of the import still leaves US consumers with less money to buy domestic goods. Which harms US GDP and US jobs.

... Employees and their dependents are by far the greatest portion of USA's middle-income families and statistically are the entire low-income segment that's not more dependent upon public assistance. We all benefit from cheaper imports, but benefits to those employees and their dependents do not fully compensate for trade deficits detrimental effects upon their numbers of jobs that's reflected within their aggregate finances.

Enterprises within all trade policies gain no competitive advantage due to cheaper imports; (but they suffer competitive disadvantages within all trade policies if they refrain from choosing what they consider the best of “deals” available to them). They are not denied that prerogative within any trade policy I'm aware of.

ToddsterPatriot, all of Import Certificate policies net costs are passed on, (as they should be), to the root cause of the nation's trade deficits, (i.e. to the nation's purchasers and users of imported goods).

IC policy's net costs beyond their government's fees (to defray government's direct expenditures due to the policy), serve as price subsidies for the nation's exports. Exporters of USA goods are not required to decrease their prices but markets' behaviors will impel them to realize more of their profits due to increased sales volumes rather than to sales or trades of the Import Certificates they acquire.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... You have to measure the benefit to producers against the harm caused to consumers.
You can't just make a blanket claim that it's automatically a benefit to US GDP or US standards of living.

Even in cases where there is no domestic production of a manufactured good, raising the price of the import still leaves US consumers with less money to buy domestic goods. Which harms US GDP and US jobs.

... Employees and their dependents are by far the greatest portion of USA's middle-income families and statistically are the entire low-income segment that's not more dependent upon public assistance. We all benefit from cheaper imports, but benefits to those employees and their dependents do not fully compensate for trade deficits detrimental effects upon their numbers of jobs that's reflected within their aggregate finances.

Enterprises within all trade policies gain no competitive advantage due to cheaper imports; (but they suffer competitive disadvantages within all trade policies if they refrain from choosing what they consider the best of “deals” available to them). They are not denied that prerogative within any trade policy I'm aware of.

ToddsterPatriot, all of Import Certificate policies net costs are passed on, (as they should be), to the root cause of the nation's trade deficits, (i.e. to the nation's purchasers and users of imported goods).

IC policy's net costs beyond their government's fees (to defray government's direct expenditures due to the policy), serve as price subsidies for the nation's exports. Exporters of USA goods are not required to decrease their prices but markets' behaviors will impel them to realize more of their profits due to increased sales volumes rather than to sales or trades of the Import Certificates they acquire.

Respectfully, Supposn

Nothing you've just posted goes any further in proving your previous claims.

 

[Supposn]

Nothing you've just posted goes any further in proving your previous claims.

Toddsterpatriot,If and when the USA should enact an Import Certificate policy of global trade, how do you believe USA's global and domestic markets would behave?

The entire previous annual import volumes would be unsustainable unless USA's volumes of exports were increased.

Importers of foreign goods would bid against each other for the necessary ICs.

Despite the increased prices to USA purchasers of Imports, there would be effective USA purchasers' demands for some or many imported items.

Importers of foreign goods competing for available ICs, would bid up those IC prices. USA goods Exporters' net gains due to acquiring ICs would serve as indirect but effective price subsidies for USA exported goods; which would somewhat increase USA volumes of exports and introduce additional ICs into the global IC markets.

Due to increased import prices, USA purchasers would purchase more USA items that are similar to the foreign items, or purchase alternative USA goods or service products. I doubt that USA would purchase less aggregate goods and service products.

What I do not perceive is USA's GDP and numbers of job being reduced due to the proposed IC policy.
Can you conceive a logical alternative to my analysis?
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing you've just posted goes any further in proving your previous claims.

Toddsterpatriot,If and when the USA should enact an Import Certificate policy of global trade, how do you believe USA's global and domestic markets would behave?

The entire previous annual import volumes would be unsustainable unless USA's volumes of exports were increased.

Importers of foreign goods would bid against each other for the necessary ICs.

Despite the increased prices to USA purchasers of Imports, there would be effective USA purchasers' demands for some or many imported items.

Importers of foreign goods competing for available ICs, would bid up those IC prices. USA goods Exporters' net gains due to acquiring ICs would serve as indirect but effective price subsidies for USA exported goods; which would somewhat increase USA volumes of exports and introduce additional ICs into the global IC markets.

Due to increased import prices, USA purchasers would purchase more USA items that are similar to the foreign items, or purchase alternative USA goods or service products. I doubt that USA would purchase less aggregate goods and service products.

What I do not perceive is USA's GDP and numbers of job being reduced due to the proposed IC policy.
Can you conceive a logical alternative to my analysis?
.
Respectfully, Supposn

Due to increased import prices, USA purchasers would purchase more USA items that are similar to the foreign items, or purchase alternative USA goods or service products. I doubt that USA would purchase less aggregate goods and service products.

Yes, more purchases of more costly US goods. Less money left to buy other goods.
Reducing the standard of living of US consumers.

What I do not perceive is USA's GDP and numbers of job being reduced due to the proposed IC policy.

I already mentioned another instance of higher prices caused by government policy, sugar quotas, that caused GDP and job losses, candy manufacturing in Chicago.

 

[Supposn]

Due to increased import prices, USA purchasers would purchase more USA items that are similar to the foreign items, or purchase alternative USA goods or service products. I doubt that USA would purchase less aggregate goods and service products.

Yes, more purchases of more costly US goods. Less money left to buy other goods.
Reducing the standard of living of US consumers.

What I do not perceive is USA's GDP and numbers of job being reduced due to the proposed IC policy.

I already mentioned another instance of higher prices caused by government policy, sugar quotas, that caused GDP and job losses, candy manufacturing in Chicago.

ToddsterPatriot, USA cannot sustain the practice of purchasing more costly USA goods, and/or alternative USA goods and service products, unless we continue to at very least sustain (and we would actually be driven to increase) our production volumes; that's net increasing our GDP.

You're contending a nation can sustain increasing their GDP while it would also sustain reduction of their living standards? Other than sacrifices to retain national hot or cold war-time survival, are you aware of any nation ever attempting to do that?

What you referred to was USA deliberately supporting the price of sugar and thus consequentially shifting our markets sales and production of aggregate products. That may or may not have reduced our nation's net GDP but it was not done by employing Import Certificates. I am not a proponent of global trade quotas, (which have always been politically determined). Import Certificates will increase their nation's GDP more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Due to increased import prices, USA purchasers would purchase more USA items that are similar to the foreign items, or purchase alternative USA goods or service products. I doubt that USA would purchase less aggregate goods and service products.

Yes, more purchases of more costly US goods. Less money left to buy other goods.
Reducing the standard of living of US consumers.

What I do not perceive is USA's GDP and numbers of job being reduced due to the proposed IC policy.

I already mentioned another instance of higher prices caused by government policy, sugar quotas, that caused GDP and job losses, candy manufacturing in Chicago.

ToddsterPatriot, USA cannot sustain the practice of purchasing more costly USA goods, and/or alternative USA goods and service products, unless we continue to at very least sustain (and we would actually be driven to increase) our production volumes; that's net increasing our GDP.

You're contending a nation can sustain increasing their GDP while it would also sustain reduction of their living standards? Other than sacrifices to retain national hot or cold war-time survival, are you aware of any nation ever attempting to do that?

What you referred to was USA deliberately supporting the price of sugar and thus consequentially shifting our markets sales and production of aggregate products. That may or may not have reduced our nation's net GDP but it was not done by employing Import Certificates. I am not a proponent of global trade quotas, (which have always been politically determined). Import Certificates will increase their nation's GDP more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

What you referred to was USA deliberately supporting the price of sugar and thus consequentially shifting our markets sales and production of aggregate products.

Yes. And you want an IC plan which would do similar things to our economy.

Import Certificates will increase their nation's GDP more than otherwise.​

Except in those areas where it will decrease our GDP. ​

 

[Supposn]

What you referred to was USA deliberately supporting the price of sugar and thus consequentially shifting our markets sales and production of aggregate products.

Yes. And you want an IC plan which would do similar things to our economy.

Import Certificates will increase their nation's GDP more than otherwise.

Except in those areas where it will decrease our GDP. ​

Toddsterpatriot, no, unlike quotas or tariffs, IC policy is much more market rather than government driven and would increase USA's annual GDP more than otherwise.

It cannot prevent any particular type of product from being imported. Although it certainly favors USA produced goods to a limited extent, it does not favor or disfavor any other of the world's geographic or political areas, or enterprise, or industry. It's applicable to the dollar values of all goods excluding the values of mineral materials integral to the goods that are listed as scarce or precious minerals; (crude oil is expected to be on that list).
.
You consider a trade policy not favoring or disfavoring any particular USA state or region as to be an undesirable federal policy?
.
Respectfully, Supposn