Warren Buffett's concept to (significantly) reduce USA's trade deficit

[Supposn]

Warren Buffett co-authored a concept that was the basis of Senators Dorgan and Feingold’s 2006 bill to significantly reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods. Trade deficit’s detriment to the GDP greatly exceeds the amount of the deficit itself. What’s detrimental to the GDP is also generally detrimental to the median wage.

I urge browsing the paragraph sub-titles within the web site
of " USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com "
and reading those titled paragraphs that catch your interest.

Excerpted from the refered to World Wide Web (site).

“ *** Warren Buffett’s concept to significantly decrease USA’s global trade deficit of goods.

…………… Exporters would be issued TRANSFERABLE IMPORT CERTIFICATES for that assessed value of their goods leaving the USA. Importers would be required to surrender IMPORT Certificates for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered certificates are cancelled.

The 2006 draft did not reach a senate floor vote. Many of us regret the draft was not self-funding. We prefer that goods leaving the USA be assessed and certificates issued only for exporter that choose to pay fees covering all government expenses due to this trade act. The open market value of transferable import certificates would sufficiently motivate exporters. ......
................ We also regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. [This should be a deal buster. The absence of such an exclusion would undermine, (if not completely evade) the act’s purpose]. The 2006 draft did completely exclude assessment of gas and petroleum products within the five years duration after the act’s initial enactment. .

………………… *** Conclusions.

Buffett’s concept is a restriction upon pure free trade but it is certainly pure free enterprise. The market (rather than government) driven proposal grants government no policy discretion and would certainly decrease USA’s trade deficit.

It's advantageous to any domestic producer competing with foreign goods within or beyond our borders. It would also induce the aggregate sum of our imports plus exports to increase.

All of this would significantly increase our GDP which in turn induces increasing median wage. Unlike temporary trillion dollar economic stimulus, this will not increase present and future debts or taxes.

I'm aware of no existing or proposed trade policy that would accomplish all of this with no net government expense, less government intervention and less increased prices of imported goods”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

Thanks for the links, Suppos'n, I'll be checking it out.

I'm still unsure how his proposed system work, but the fact that this issue is finally coming to the fore is a damned good sign.

 

[editec]

Okay had time to read this.

They are proposing a system of trade-balance indulges.

(1) BALANCED TRADE CERTIFICATE; CERTIFICATE- The terms `Balanced Trade Certificate' and `Certificate' mean a certificate issued pursuant to section 4 that provides the holder of the certificate with a license to import into the United States .."

Transferable indulgences, I note.

(2) TRANSFERABILITY AND LIMITATION ON VALIDITY OF CERTIFICATES- A Certificate issued pursuant to this Act shall be--

(A) fully transferable; and


(B) valid for 365 days from the date the Certificate is issued.

It will certainly have the effect of making imports more expensive.

It also give exporters a tradeable commodity (their export certificates).

(1) ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES- The Program established under section 4 shall provide for the issuance of a Certificate to any person who exports a good from the United States with a face value equivalent to a multiple of the appraised value of the good determined pursuant to paragraph (2).

I also note with some trepidation that Homeland security will oversee the issuence and brokerage of these certificates, too.

a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, establish a Balanced Trade Certificate Program within the International Trade Administration of the Department.

Homeland security?! Is there anything they cannot do?


Seems to me that the exporting certificates aspect of this proposal is an unnecessary complication.

What purpose does that serve other than to give exporters a windfall profit for selling their certificates to the importers?

 

[Supposn]

Editec. Wrote, “Seems to me that the exporting certificates aspect of this proposal is an unnecessary complication". What purpose does that serve other than to give exporters a windfall profit for selling their certificates to the importers?”.

Editec, where did you find reference to an “exporting certificate”? Was it a typographical error you read or wrote? Warren Buffett’s concept refers only to “transferable IMPORT certificates”. Excerpted from the USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com we site:
”Exporters would be issued transferable IMPORT Certificates for that assessed value of their goods leaving the USA. Importers would be required to surrender IMPORT Certificates for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered certificates are cancelled”.

The concept would NOT “give exporters a windfall profits”. Exporters' ability to profit from acquiring IMPORT certificates could increase their margin of profit. The characteristics of free enterprise is such that it’s more likely that foreign purchasers will negotiate cheaper prices for USA goods or insist that the IMPORT certificates be included within he purchase.

The value of the IMPORT certificates will enable the export of many USA products that otherwise could not otherwise have competed in the global market.

The concept of transferable IMPORT certificates would induce greater volumes of USA exports. This proposal will increase the aggregate total of USA’s imports plus exports. It will not reduce USA’s global trade of goods but that trade will now run both ways. Cargo ships entering the USA will cease being almost empty when they depart.

We’ve been importing cars and exporting scrap metal. You read about the “green” future? Under our present trade policy the wind generators, solar power plant equipment and much more will be imported into the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

Editec. Wrote, “Seems to me that the exporting certificates aspect of this proposal is an unnecessary complication". What purpose does that serve other than to give exporters a windfall profit for selling their certificates to the importers?”.

Editec, where did you find reference to an “exporting certificate”? Was it a typographical error you read or wrote? Warren Buffett’s concept refers only to “transferable IMPORT certificates”.

You appear to be correct...there may only be one kind of certificate.

But EXPORTERS are issued those certificates which IMPROTERS need to submit to homeland security in order to offset the value of their imports.

(1) ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES- The Program established under section 4 shall provide for the issuance of a Certificate to any person who exports a good from the United States


Excerpted from the USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com we site:

”Exporters would be issued transferable IMPORT Certificates for that assessed value of their goods leaving the USA. Importers would be required to surrender IMPORT Certificates for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered certificates are cancelled”.

You cannot see how that leads to windfall profits for importers?

The concept would NOT “give exporters a windfall profits”. Exporters' ability to profit from acquiring IMPORT certificates could increase their margin of profit.

Yes, that's why I'm referring to they're selling these certificates as a WINDFALL profit.

Presumably nobody exported at a loss now.

So obtaining certificates which IMPORTERS must have (and which cawill be bought from importers by exporters) is that windfall profit (to importers) of which I speak.

The characteristics of free enterprise is such that it’s more likely that foreign purchasers will negotiate cheaper prices for USA goods or insist that the IMPORT certificates be included within he purchase.

You really don't need to lecture to me about the characterisitics of free enterprise. This issue is about where the revenues on tariffs is invested.

Under this plan the certificates are being GIVEN to exporters so they can SELL THEM to importers.

That's a pointless complication that rewards exporters.... NOT the American people directly, but the EXPORTERS.

The value of the IMPORT certificates will enable the export of many USA products that otherwise could not otherwise have competed in the global market.

Yes I understand that. But it's still a needless and, I think, unwise complication to the system.


The windfall profits (they are a windfall because they exist only because of this law) could make exporting goods more profitable than they might otherwise be.

The concept of transferable IMPORT certificates would induce greater volumes of USA exports.

Yes, and that is a good thing, upon that we certainly agree.

We just disagree on who will benefit from the revenues on thise certificates. I don't think it wise to give that benefit to exporters who are already operating profitably exporting their goods.

I think the importers should buy certificates directly from the government, and NOT from exporters.

This proposal will increase the aggregate total of USA’s imports plus exports.

I doubt it will increase the amount of IMPORTS since its raising the cost of imports

It will not reduce USA’s global trade of goods but that trade will now run both ways.

It runs both ways now, it is merely wuldly out of balance.

But there is absolutely no need to issue certificates to exporters.

That is a needless complication of this problem.

Plus, while the people of the USA assume the cost of issuing certificates, the people of the USA do not benefit from the certificates sales...under this system the EXPORTERS receive that benefit.

Easier and more beneficial to the USA, simply sell IMPORT certificates to IMPROTERS.

Presumably EXPORTERS ALREADY export their goods and need no such windfall profit (which is really the tariffs on imports) going to them.

Where those tariffs (which they're calling certificates) should be going is to the PEOPLE of the USA to do with as they choose.

I prepose they people of the USA invest that money in industry to produce more goods which are currently imported, but that certainly can be decided when the system goes in place.

 

[editec]

Editec. Wrote, “Seems to me that the exporting certificates aspect of this proposal is an unnecessary complication". What purpose does that serve other than to give exporters a windfall profit for selling their certificates to the importers?”.

Editec, where did you find reference to an “exporting certificate”? Was it a typographical error you read or wrote? Warren Buffett’s concept refers only to “transferable IMPORT certificates”.

YOu may be correct...there may only be one kind of certificate. But EXPORTERS are issued those certificates which IMPROTERS need to submit in order to offset the value of their imports.

(1) ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES- The Program established under section 4 shall provide for the issuance of a Certificate to any person who exports a good from the United StatesQUOTE]

Excerpted from the USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com we site:

”Exporters would be issued transferable IMPORT Certificates for that assessed value of their goods leaving the USA. Importers would be required to surrender IMPORT Certificates for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered certificates are cancelled”.

The concept would NOT “give exporters a windfall profits”. Exporters' ability to profit from acquiring IMPORT certificates could increase their margin of profit.

Yes, that's why I'm referring to their seeling these certificates as a WINDFALL profit.

Presumably nobody exported at a loss, of course, so obtaining certificates which IMPORTTERS must have (and which can be sold to importers by exporters) is that windfall profit of which I speak.

The characteristics of free enterprise is such that it’s more likely that foreign purchasers will negotiate cheaper prices for USA goods or insist that the IMPORT certificates be included within he purchase.

You really don't need to lecture to me about the characterisitics of free enterprise. This is about taxation and where the bounty on tariffs is invested.

Right now the tariffs duties (now called certificates) are being GIVEN to exporters so they can SELL THEM to importers.

that's a pointless complication that rewards exporters. NOT the American people directly but only EXPORTERS.

The value of the IMPORT certificates will enable the export of many USA products that otherwise could not otherwise have competed in the global market.

Yes I understand that. But it's still a needless and I think unwise complication to the system.


The windfall profits (they are a windfall because they exist only because of this law) could make exporting some good more profitable than they might otherwise be.

The concept of transferable IMPORT certificates would induce greater volumes of USA exports.

Yes, and that is a good thing, upon that we certainly agree. We just disagree on who will benefit from the revenues on thise certificates. I don't think it wise to give that benefit to exporters who are already operating profitably exporting their goods.

I think the importers should buy certificates directly from the government, and NOT from exporters.

This proposal will increase the aggregate total of USA’s imports plus exports.

I doubt it will increase the amount of IMPORTS since its raising the cost of imports

It will not reduce USA’s global trade of goods but that trade will now run both ways.

It runs both ways now, it is merely wuldly out of balance.

But there is absolutely no need to issue certificates to exporters.

That is a needless complication of this problem.

Plus, while the people of the USA assume the cost of issuing certificates, the people of the USA do not benefit from the certificates sales...under this system the EXPORTERS receive that benefit.

Easier and more beneficial to the USA, simply sell IMPORT certificates to IMPROTERS.

Presumably EXPORTERS ALREADY export their goods and need no such windfall profit (which is really the tariffs on imports) going to them.

Where those tariffs (which they're calling certificates) should be going is to the PEOPLE of the USA to do with as they choose.

I prepose they people of the USA invest that money in industry to produce more goods which are currently imported, but that certainly can be decided when the system goes in place.

 

[Supposn]

Editec,
Within our present trade policy, the market price of USA beef at dockside or when being loaded for export from the USA is one and the same.

Under Buffett’s concept, the market price of USA beef being loaded for export would be less. Purchasers of exported goods would generally negotiate cheaper prices to reflect the exporters’ profits due to acquiring the Import certificates, (the ICs). The ICs are additional by-products of export sales transactions.

If an exporter of USA beef were to refrain from granting such price concessions, other competing exporters would be pleased to do so.

Of course the beef exporters will profit. Foreign purchasers and consumers of USA beef will also profit. I do not consider this as a “windfall” profit for USA beef exporters.

The lower prices of USA beef within foreign markets should hopefully increase USA beef export volumes, increasing USA beef production, butchering, transportation of beef to ports of departure, and the loading of beef on to the cargo ships.

The increases to the GDP are not limited to these services that I’ve mentioned. That is why the increase to the GDP in this example far exceeds USA beef’s additional contribution to USA’s exports and its decrease of USA’s trade deficit.

This is an excerpt from the paragraphs
entitled “*** A nation’s trade deficit is always a net economic detriment”
within the world wide web
(site of) USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com .

“……………… Modification of a community's gross production affects local employment and wage rates. This same phenomenon occurs when the initial catalytic producers were small but acting in concert. (That's often the case within single or allied industries). On a national scale this is all generally dispersed and thus less obvious but no less real”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[JW Frogen]

He said Buffet and beef.


heeee he hehhe hhe heeee he.

 

[Supposn]

Editec, I should not have abridged the transcript I posted of the first paragraph within the world wide web
(site of) USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com . :
“ “*** A nation’s trade deficit is always a net economic detriment.

When local producers have perceptively modified their volumes of productions, there is often obvious resonating production modifications within the community. Producers of completely unrelated products and services can be affected, (i.e. factory production affecting beauty parlors revenues).

Modification of a community's gross production affects local employment and wage rates. This same phenomenon occurs when the initial catalytic producers were small but acting in concert. (That's often the case within single or allied industries). On a national scale this is all generally dispersed and thus less obvious but no less real”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Editec,
You I and some others agree that the transferable IMORT certificates, (the ICs) should not be GIVEV away freely.

Excerpted from the referred web site’s paragraphs
Entitled “*** Warren Buffett’s concept to significantly decrease USA’s global trade deficit of goods”:

“………….. The 2006 draft did not reach a senate floor vote. Many of us regret the draft was not self-funding. We prefer that goods leaving the USA be assessed and certificates issued only for exporter that choose to pay fees covering all government expenses due to this trade act. The open market value of transferable import certificates would sufficiently motivate exporters”.

The fees purpose is not to mitigate any supposed “exporters’ windfalls” or to be a source of net government revenue. The fees should fully cover all government’s assessment and administrative expenses. (Expenses for policing imports will not be attributed to this program. Homeland security is now mandated to be aware of every person or thing entering the USA).

This program shouldn’t induce present or future additional net government expenses, debts or taxes
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

Editec,
Within our present trade policy, the market price of USA beef at dockside or when being loaded for export from the USA is one and the same.

Under Buffett’s concept, the market price of USA beef being loaded for export would be less. Purchasers of exported goods would generally negotiate cheaper prices to reflect the exporters’ profits due to acquiring the Import certificates, (the ICs). The ICs are additional by-products of export sales transactions.

Yes, that's right.

And that's exactly what I'm complaining about.

Exporters are ALREADY exporting beef. They don't need the help.

THIS is going to help the same American industries that our trade policies have been distorted in order to to help already.

It won't do a damned thing to bring back industries that we don't have because of free trade.

If an exporter of USA beef were to refrain from granting such price concessions, other competing exporters would be pleased to do so.

Of course the beef exporters will profit. Foreign purchasers and consumers of USA beef will also profit. I do not consider this as a “windfall” profit for USA beef exporters.

Doesn't matter what you or I call it

This proposed system directs the revenues of the certification process to the exporters.

And the AMERICAN consumer pays that cost

And the end beneficiaries are the foreign buyers (who presumable get cheaper American goods) the exporting manufacuters, and their workers.

The lower prices of USA beef within foreign markets should hopefully increase USA beef export volumes, increasing USA beef production, butchering, transportation of beef to ports of departure, and the loading of beef on to the cargo ships.

YES, UNDOUBTABLY TRUE. And I also understand that that is a good thing...but is it the best way to do this?

I don't think so.

The increases to the GDP are not limited to these services that I’ve mentioned. That is why the increase to the GDP in this example far exceeds USA beef’s additional contribution to USA’s exports and its decrease of USA’s trade deficit.

I didn't follow that argument. Try again. Please.

Look..let's recap, shall we?

American consumer will be paying importors extra money for imported goods yes?

The money the Americans pay will go to the exporters who will then pass the saving along to the foreignors who buy exported goods, yes?

Now does that really make the best use of the revenues generated by this system?

I don't think it does

I have a counter proposal.

Import certificates sold to importers issued directly by the FEDS. The importers buy them from the government

The government takes that revenue to seed industries to make things in the USA in direct relation to how much of those goods we currently import....things that we currently IMPORT.

If, for example shoe imports generate 1 billion in revenues, the government now has that money to help reconstitute (perhaps in the form of susidized loans) shoe manufacturing here.

Remember the point here is to reconsitute industries we screwed, not to help industires that don't need the help.

Besides, what Buffet suggesting is actual likely to cause a trade war even more than what I'm proposing.

What Warren is suggesting DUMPING American goods on foreign shores by distorting their true prices by giving those companies those profits from selling their certificates.

The current exporters don't need the help...the industries we lost as a result of cheap imports DO.

 

[Supposn]

Editec,
You are correct; “exporters are ALREADY exporting beef”. I want to address your next sentence, “They don't need the help”.

Buffett’s concept is advantageous to any USA producer that competes or aspires to compete with foreign producers within or beyond USA’s borders. The concept’s market rather than government driven. It grants government no discretion with regard to matters of policy. (Assessments of goods’ USA market values are technical rather than policy determinations).

The law should be applied to all industries or foreign nations without exception. We agree that it will increase prices of all imports purchased or consumed within the USA, but the concept (as many would have it drafted) would be of no net expense to our government.

The concept’s only task is to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit and (while so doing it will) accomplish a secondary task of promoting the increase of USA exports. The concept will succeed to do all of that. Accomplishing those two tasks will increase our GDP far in excess of the trade deficit’s reduced amount. Increasing the GDP induces increases of our median wage.

We export beef. Our beef producer’s must deal with federal subsidies of commodities that increase their costs of feed, and the significant foreign competition from meat producing nations such as New Zealand and Argentina. Increasing USA beef production increases USA’s GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Editec,
Buyers often shop for the best deal offers. Competing sellers within a competitive environment generally strive to reduce their prices in order to increase their sales.
.
If there’s a reduction of expenses common to all venders competing to sell similar products, purchasers will generally seek prices reflecting the reduction of venders’ net costs.

The valuable transferable IMPORT Certificates exporters derive as a by0product of their USA goods sales, are in effect a reduction of their net costs for such goods. Competing sellers and shopping buyers will (in aggregate) compel price reductions of those goods sold for export from the USA.

Buffett’s concept's induced price reduction of USA exports increases the volume of USA exports. Those additional exports further reduce our trade deficit (which in turn increases our GDP and median wage). .

Exporters will make some profits and incur some expenses and inconvenience for handling the ICs, This is not extraordinary or “windfall” profits, “Profit” should not be considered a word with an evil connotation.

If the alternative suggestion that the government for government directly selling the IC’s, would they be sold within a competitive market; a monthly public auction? .Within Buffett’s concept, “cornering the IC market is impossible. If government publicly sells the IC’s, instances of speculators “cornering” the IC market will almost inevitably occur.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Editec, do you believe it is possible to decrease the net cost of exported USA goods and prevent the decrease of the goods prices within the foreign markets? How would you propose that could be done?

Anyone, regardless of their nationality may directly or through their agents, function as exporters of goods from, or importers of goods into the USA. If exporters of goods received “windfall” profits, it would precipitate a “gold rush” of entrepreneurs clambering to act as exporters.

Within Buffett’s concept, government directly distributes the valuable ICs only to exporters of USA goods. The obtained IC values offset some of exporters' costs for USA products. Exporter’s lower net cost of USA goods induces lower prices to foreign purchasers.

Lower prices of USA exported goods will not be limited to products we’re currently exporting. The export prices will also be lower for many USA products which now are uneconomical to export.

Exporters’ and our nation will benefit from our increased exports. It is exporters subsidizing their export transactions with the profits from their IC transactions that will induce increased export transactions. Exporters can not, (and will not) do this unless they have the IC profits. It is the best method to increase USA exports.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Editec,
You’re advocating that we permit government to determine how public money is to be spent for encouraging different industries? The government should determine which industries or commercial entities are, or are not worthy of such favorable government considerations?

USA’s footwear industry suffered a 2008 net trade deficit in excess of six, (6) billion dollars. You advocate federal government’s risking public funds to revitalize that industry? USA’s meat and meat preparation industry contributed almost two. (2) billion dollars to our nation’s net trade balance. The meat packers are unworthy of any government consideration? USA’s aircraft and parts industry net contribution was almost eleven, (11) billion dollars. I believe (after adjustments for changed value of the U.S. dollar), contributions within prior years were much greater. Due to the industry’s positive contributors to USA’s trade balance, they are not worthy of government consideration? We should wait until the industry suffers further decline and becomes worthy of government’s consideration?

Editec, I generally disagree with government’s discrimination of any particular USA industry or the favoring of any particular commercial entities. Favoring any entity is generally discrimination of other entities.

[My arguments for or against individual proposed or existing laws are based upon my opinions of the specific drafting of the laws. I lean toward refraining from government mandates, prohibitions. discriminations or favoritisms. I recognize that necessity or overriding public benefits may justify such provisions within particular laws or regulations. I’m amused by those considering themselves to be conservatives and refusing to consider such possible justifications. They are outraged when I accuse them of advocating anarchy].

I do not absolutely oppose government regulation or favoritism. I do dread any individuals’ or organizations' unchecked rights to exercise their discretion to affect our lives. Government is among the most powerful of such organizations. Legal checks and balances are vital to our society and individuals’ mutual protection from excesses of such determinations.

You didn’t explain what method you propose for government subsidizing any particular USA industry.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Editec,
You haven’t explained how we are going to determine which USA industries and companies are worthy of our government’s assistance?

When any USA industry receives favorable government consideration, other less favored industries are being discriminated against. The U.S. Congress should make some effort to justify such choices.

(Refer to my prior (9Aug09) post within this thread)

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Editec, I assume that we both appreciate amd agree with free enterprise's characteristics. Why do you prefer tariffs to Buffett’s concept?

Buffett’s concept is market driven. Until the law itself is changed, it grants no policy determination to the government. The assessment of goods value within the USA and expressed in U.S. dollars is a technical rather than a policy decision.

A tariff completely conforms to the definition of a tax which is the mandated transfer of wealth to the government. The tariff rate is set by government regulation. In the USA our regulations are seldom explicitly specified within the acts being included into federal law. The U.S. Congress has always given the regulatory agency the power to set tariff rates. Congress advises, and if congress sufficiently disapproves, you can expect the congress to remedy the situation by an additional congressional act, (i.e. federal laws).

Under the draft version of Buffett’s proposal that some advocate, upon the exporter’s request and agreement to pay federal assessment fees, the goods would be assessed prior to shipment from the USA. If goods are assessed and shipped from USA, the federal government will issue and deliver a transferable IMPORT Certificate, (e.g. an IC) to the exporter for the goods assessed value.

The government’s assessment fee’s purpose is to fund government’s expenses due this IC law. Congress (as is the usual practice) will likely delegate the regulating agency to set the specific fee amount. Importers of goods entering the USA are requires to surrender IC’s for the assessed value of their goods. Surrendered goods are cancelled.

Under either a tariff or an IC system, government’s expense should be included within the prices of imported goods sold to USA purchasers. Under a tariff policy, the entire additions to the prices are determined by the government. Under an IC policy, although government fees add something to the price, the addition to prices are almost entirely determined by the open market value of IC’s,

The market price of IC’s s positively affected by what USA purchasers are willing to pay for imported goods. It is negatively affected by what foreign purchasers are willing to pay for USA goods. IC’s market price is little affected by the government thus it is much less affected by political and commercial lobbyists.

Tariffs being entirely determined by the government always have been greatly affected by political and commercial lobbyists. To be most effective, tariffs require monitoring and adjustment. The wrong tariff rate can be completely ineffective to the extent that it’s detrimental to the nation’s economy. People of the greatest intelligence and integrity can tot outguess the domestic or the foreign markets. The extent of their misjudgments varies. Their instances of being in tune with the markets are fleeting to the point of being accidental.

Within both policies, the additions to prices of imports sold to USA purchasers are critical to the trade policies' achieving their purposes.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Editec, tariffs can not increase USA’s exports, Buffett’s concept can not provide additional federal revenue. I disagree with your contention that a government driven tariff policy would be more economically beneficial than Buffett’s market driven concept.

You also believe that the government should determine how tariff revenue should be used to bolster USA’s industries. I’m of the opinion that Buffett’s concept would certainly accomplish this through the market in a manner superior to any possible government method.

Respectfully, Supposn