Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
Didn't Alexander Hamilton , as sec of the treasury, detail this back when he held that office?
~S~
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
Didn't Alexander Hamilton , as sec of the treasury, detail this back when he held that office?
~S~
About 52% of Americans voted for Obama. So the figure is largely meaningless. Additionally most people think:
1) Outsourcing is primarily responsible for loss of jobs
2) Protecting domestic industries will create jobs.
Both of these are demonstrably and patently false.
The proposal puts us back into the old mercantilism mindset, with every country trying to export more than it imports. It didnt work too well then either.
Fortunately this has no chance whatsoever of passing.
People become wealthy by making transactions. If you artificially discourage making those transactions then you discourage wealth.
In this case even though a trade imbalance is a negative, the cure would be worse than the disease.
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
When gov't can dictate who can sell what to whom on what terms we are in the gulag.
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
Didn't Alexander Hamilton , as sec of the treasury, detail this back when he held that office?
~S~
No, he didn't.
Proposal fails.
Next topic.
About 52% of Americans voted for Obama. So the figure is largely meaningless. Additionally most people think:
1) Outsourcing is primarily responsible for loss of jobs
2) Protecting domestic industries will create jobs.
Both of these are demonstrably and patently false.
The proposal puts us back into the old mercantilism mindset, with every country trying to export more than it imports. It didnt work too well then either.
Fortunately this has no chance whatsoever of passing.
Nice word patently...it sounds so authoritative.
Now prove it that outsourcing isn't responsible for the decline in wages and jobs.
Go ahead, I want to see HOW you prove this.
This is truely the weakest argument i've seen for free trade yet, not to mention 6 yrs old.....how many biz's have gone under or offshored since then?
seeing as we are somewhere in the area of a 70% service , as opposed to production GDP, i think we can regulate the HF to the trickle down contingent
Now prove it that outsourcing isn't responsible for the decline in wages and jobs.
Go ahead, I want to see HOW you prove this.
This is truely the weakest argument i've seen for free trade yet, not to mention 6 yrs old.....how many biz's have gone under or offshored since then?
seeing as we are somewhere in the area of a 70% service , as opposed to production GDP, i think we can regulate the HF to the trickle down contingent
Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.
An underlying myth is that economic freedom is a "race to the bottom" in which American workers must accept lower wages and fewer benefits in order to compete with low-cost labor in other countries.
While free trade can cause localized pain for a few workers, the overall gains are overwhelming. The myth of lower wages due to increased trade is wrong on theory and wrong on the facts.[/COLOR]
While free trade can cause localized pain for a few workers, the overall gains are overwhelming. The myth of lower wages due to increased trade is wrong on theory and wrong on the facts.[/COLOR]
Sparky, just what do you mean by localized pain for a few workers? There's absolutely no gains due to a trade deficit.
Due to the GDP formula a trade deficit cannot contribute to a nation's GDP.
GDP only describes a nations production. GDP cannot describe what a nations production would be if the trade deficit were increased or decreased. A nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to any trade deficit.
[Due to the GDP formula a trade surplus certainly contributes to a nation's GDP].
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Certificates
www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot,com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
GDP = [C + I + G] + [eX - i]
[C + I + G] + [domestic expenditures lexcluding transfers of wealth]
C= Consimerspending, I- invesatment, G = government spending
[eX - i] = [net trade balance]
eX = exports, i = imports
Rabbi, your opinion, Your cure is worse than the disease. It is a non-solution to a non problem is itself a contradiction.
Did you mean to express your view that trade deficits are not detrimental to a nations GDP? Otherwise this is a trade proposal for a solution to a very real detriment to the GDP.
To believe Trade deficits are not detrimental to the GDP would seem to be contrary to intuitive logic.
By definition trade deficits can contribute nothing to a nations GDP. If we reverse a deficit trade balance, (i.e. if we transform it to be a trade surplus), the surplus certainly contributes to the nations GDP.
I iterate, GDP only describes a nations production. GDP cannot describe what a nations production would be if the trade deficit were increased or decreased. A nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to any trade deficit.
Respectfully, Supposn
Petroleum and petroleum products account for over half the trade deficit. Can't we just produce more and import less?