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

[editec]

USA unemployment and under employment can be dirrectly attributed to nearly 50 years of rather stupid trade policies.

MOSTLY one must blame the DEMOCRATS for this, FYI.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... So you've claimed. So let's stop importing oil, it's sure to increases jobs and median wages.
All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations.
Excellent! No foreign oil, starting today!

Toddster Patriot, Refer to response #458 entitled “Exclusions to the assessed values of goods”.
Assuming congress would include crude oil among their list of identified precious or scarce mineral materials, export or import of crude oil would be unaffected by this trade proposal.

Hindering global trade of any precious or scarce material integral to goods being assessed is your idea rather than mine.

Respectfully, Supposn

Hindering global trade of any precious or scarce material integral to goods being assessed is your idea rather than mine.

"All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations" is your idea.
The largest single American import is oil.
Why don't you want to eliminate the single largest "immediate economic detriment" to our nation?

Why are you inconsistent in your belief?

 

[Supposn]

USA unemployment and under employment can be dirrectly attributed to nearly 50 years of rather stupid trade policies.

MOSTLY one must blame the DEMOCRATS for this, FYI.

Editec, party leader’s rather than their general supporters of BOTH USA’s major parties and their associates have generally acquiesced to the concept and goal of “pure” free trade.

Few if any of those leaders consistently or to any great extent even concerned if our USA goods and those attempting to import USA products into other nations are treated by those nations with lesser consideration that that granted to other competing foreign nations.

Although I do not believe that we foolishly entered any global trade agreements without a clause granting us equal consideration as all other the other nation’s participating in those agreements, (i.e. granting us the full privileges that status of being among the “most favored nations” with regard to products entering those nations), we altruistically tolerate nation’s treating our goods and attempts to import our goods into their nations with lesser consideration than they grant to some other nations.

We import goods from many nations that utilize sales taxes, (usually VAT method of sales taxes), as a significant proportion of their nation’s tax revenues. Importers of products into those nations pay their full share of taxes which include those sales taxes upon the gross amount of their products’ values. Governments generally (and with good reason) waive sales taxes upon exported products delivered beyond their jurisdiction. This in effect compensates exporters for sales taxes that may be required to pay at the receiving jurisdiction.
Aside from the price benefits derived from cheaper labor which directly and indirectly reduce all of the import products’ production costs, the sales taxes (which are based and the value of those products) are waved for exported products.
Governments generally (and with good reason) waive sales taxes upon exported products delivered beyond their jurisdiction. Importers of foreign goods into the USA are at a much greater advantage to exporters of USA products. This advantage is directly and indirectly reflected within the prices of foreign products entering the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Google Wikipedia’s articles’ “Import Certificates” and to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the article “Balance of Trade”.
Also refer to the thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tal-to-their-nations-gdps-21.html#post7835134

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Google Wikipedia’s articles’ “Import Certificates” and to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the article “Balance of Trade”.
Also refer to the thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tal-to-their-nations-gdps-21.html#post7835134

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes, because your idiocy never grows old.

 

[Supposn]

Hindering global trade of any precious or scarce material integral to goods being assessed is your idea rather than mine.

"All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations" is your idea.
The largest single American import is oil.
Why don't you want to eliminate the single largest "immediate economic detriment" to our nation?

Why are you inconsistent in your belief?

Toddster Patriot, there are logical reasons for excluding the approximate value precious or scarce minerals integral to goods being assessed.
(Similar imported and exported goods’ values are assessed in exactly the same manner).

Transferable Import Certificates’ advantage over any other form of transferable securities or of money is that only the surrender of ICs with face values sufficient the value of goods can enable those goods to enter the USA. Precious minerals such as platinum ore or diamonds are a common substitute for cash.

Regardless of how low ICs’ global market price, there would never be a U.S. trade deficit of goods’ assessed values.
IC’s effectiveness as a subsidy of USA exports is inversely related to both the assessed volume of our exports and the additional cost of imports to USA’s final purchasers and users of imported goods.

We do not want to export gem stone encrusted cast gold paper weights from the USA to enable more importing of foreign goods. Trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ GDPs are primarily due to their reduction of jobs and median wage. Permitting such minerals to be included within the assessed values would be contrary to the purpose of reducing the nation’s trade deficit.

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution recognized that some states gained and some states lost due to tariffs and other commerce regulations. Our federal government has supreme jurisdiction of interstate commerce regardless of any particular states’ best interests.

I believe in free enterprise and I believe in free markets within and between our states.
I’m among the proponents of this specific Import Certificate proposal because it is to the advantage of a nation such as ours which has had GDP, numbers of jobs and median wages less than otherwise due to our trade deficits. We have had annual trade deficits of goods for a half century.

For the sake of an ideological concept, (pure free trade), I’m unwilling to altruistically sacrifice the interests of our salary and wage earners for the benefit of nations that are unable or unwilling to better compensate their laborers.

Although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.

I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hindering global trade of any precious or scarce material integral to goods being assessed is your idea rather than mine.

"All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations" is your idea.
The largest single American import is oil.
Why don't you want to eliminate the single largest "immediate economic detriment" to our nation?

Why are you inconsistent in your belief?

Toddster Patriot, there are logical reasons for excluding the approximate value precious or scarce minerals integral to goods being assessed.
(Similar imported and exported goods’ values are assessed in exactly the same manner).

Transferable Import Certificates’ advantage over any other form of transferable securities or of money is that only the surrender of ICs with face values sufficient the value of goods can enable those goods to enter the USA. Precious minerals such as platinum ore or diamonds are a common substitute for cash.

Regardless of how low ICs’ global market price, there would never be a U.S. trade deficit of goods’ assessed values.
IC’s effectiveness as a subsidy of USA exports is inversely related to both the assessed volume of our exports and the additional cost of imports to USA’s final purchasers and users of imported goods.

We do not want to export gem stone encrusted cast gold paper weights from the USA to enable more importing of foreign goods. Trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ GDPs are primarily due to their reduction of jobs and median wage. Permitting such minerals to be included within the assessed values would be contrary to the purpose of reducing the nation’s trade deficit.

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution recognized that some states gained and some states lost due to tariffs and other commerce regulations. Our federal government has supreme jurisdiction of interstate commerce regardless of any particular states’ best interests.

I believe in free enterprise and I believe in free markets within and between our states.
I’m among the proponents of this specific Import Certificate proposal because it is to the advantage of a nation such as ours which has had GDP, numbers of jobs and median wages less than otherwise due to our trade deficits. We have had annual trade deficits of goods for a half century.

For the sake of an ideological concept, (pure free trade), I’m unwilling to altruistically sacrifice the interests of our salary and wage earners for the benefit of nations that are unable or unwilling to better compensate their laborers.

Although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.

I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, there are logical reasons for excluding the approximate value precious or scarce minerals integral to goods being assessed.


Yes, because not all trade deficits are "an immediate economic detriment to their nations"

Clearly oil imports increase the USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP.

 

[Supposn]

The largest single American import is oil.
Why don't you want to eliminate the single largest "immediate economic detriment" to our nation?

Why are you inconsistent in your belief?

Toddster Patriot, there are logical reasons for excluding the approximate value precious or scarce minerals integral to goods being assessed.
(Similar imported and exported goods’ values are assessed in exactly the same manner).
...
... I believe in free enterprise and I believe in free markets within and between our states.
I’m among the proponents of this specific Import Certificate proposal because it is to the advantage of a nation such as ours which has had GDP, numbers of jobs and median wages less than otherwise due to our trade deficits. We have had annual trade deficits of goods for a half century.

For the sake of an ideological concept, (pure free trade), I’m unwilling to altruistically sacrifice the interests of our salary and wage earners for the benefit of nations that are unable or unwilling to better compensate their laborers.

Although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.

I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes, because not all trade deficits are "an immediate economic detriment to their nations"
Clearly oil imports increase the USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP.

Yes, because although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.
I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot, there are logical reasons for excluding the approximate value precious or scarce minerals integral to goods being assessed.
(Similar imported and exported goods’ values are assessed in exactly the same manner).
...
... I believe in free enterprise and I believe in free markets within and between our states.
I’m among the proponents of this specific Import Certificate proposal because it is to the advantage of a nation such as ours which has had GDP, numbers of jobs and median wages less than otherwise due to our trade deficits. We have had annual trade deficits of goods for a half century.

For the sake of an ideological concept, (pure free trade), I’m unwilling to altruistically sacrifice the interests of our salary and wage earners for the benefit of nations that are unable or unwilling to better compensate their laborers.

Although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.

I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes, because not all trade deficits are "an immediate economic detriment to their nations"
Clearly oil imports increase the USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP.

Yes, because although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.
I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes, because although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP

Oil imports aren't detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP.

 

[Supposn]

Excerpted Transcript from thread “http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tal-to-their-nations-gdps-21.html#post7835134 “, post #305, entitled “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to GDPs”.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” and also the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn
//////////////////////////

Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs.

Nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations’ GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations’ entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.
Trade deficits are particularly detrimental to their nations’ families dependent upon salaries and wages; (that includes the overwhelming majority of USA’s middle income earners).

To an extent nations’ lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products. It is also conceivable for a nation’s laborers’ aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit’s detriment to their GDP. Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.


Unfortunately the USA’s trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and has not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills so superior as to eliminate our trade deficits of goods that have been occurring each year in excess of a half century’s duration.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excerpted Transcript from thread “http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tal-to-their-nations-gdps-21.html#post7835134 “, post #305, entitled “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to GDPs”.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” and also the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn
//////////////////////////

Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs.

Nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations’ GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations’ entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.
Trade deficits are particularly detrimental to their nations’ families dependent upon salaries and wages; (that includes the overwhelming majority of USA’s middle income earners).

To an extent nations’ lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products. It is also conceivable for a nation’s laborers’ aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit’s detriment to their GDP. Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.


Unfortunately the USA’s trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and has not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills so superior as to eliminate our trade deficits of goods that have been occurring each year in excess of a half century’s duration.

Your post is wrong no matter how many threads you place it on.

 

[Supposn]

... Your post is wrong no matter how many threads you place it on.

Toddster Patriot, this is the entire logic of your confrontational response?

Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade“
or
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ays-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps-21.html
and
Wikipedia’s ‘Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[editec]

We could NOT have these trade deficits if we did not at the same time, have a monetary and taxation policies that create massive distortions of real currency valuations and pricing in targeted importing or exporting nations.

Almost the entire world's paper currency situation is one rather large fiasco thanks to the world abandoning the GOLD STANDARD as it related to national balance of trade events

China devalues its currency (relative to the USD) to create jobs in China thus making Chinese goods cheaper to import into the USA and Western industrial nations.

Devalued USDs pay for these goods, which the Chinese government then dutifully converts into US debt instruments.

At the same time China's internal taxes (like VAT taxes) are waived on exported Chinese goods but IMPOSED on imported goods coming into China.

We wonder why we have a diminishing percentage of Americans working?

The above is a large part of why this has become our new reality, folks.

We liberated CAPITAL from any patriotic or tax obligations to the nation, but the working classes are still slaves to national debts and obligations.

Workers are much like serfs of Tzarist Russia...tied to the Russian land where they labor while the owner class is liberated to find the good life in Paris Moscow or London.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Your post is wrong no matter how many threads you place it on.

Toddster Patriot, this is the entire logic of your confrontational response?

Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade“
or
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ays-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps-21.html
and
Wikipedia’s ‘Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully Supposn

No, my logic is that trade deficits are not always detrimental to their nations GDP.

My proof is that another embargo against oil exports to the US would harm our GDP.

Do you claim an embargo would help our GDP?

 

[Kimura]

... Your post is wrong no matter how many threads you place it on.

Toddster Patriot, this is the entire logic of your confrontational response?

Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade“
or
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ays-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps-21.html
and
Wikipedia’s ‘Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully Supposn

No, they aren't.

There isn’t any type of trade imbalance, nor is the US exporting wealth. A good portion economists and politicians don't understand some basic concepts with regard to trade. These erroneous beliefs about trade deficits being unsustainable, imbalances, and losing jobs to China, are nutty.

For example, imagine if the US forced the Italians to send the United States one million Fiat automobiles every year after WWII. Do you think they are winning some imaginary trade war? We own the cars, and they have is an account balance at the FED where they keep dollars.

We can extend this example to China. Do you think they’re winning some trade war? They basically export and keep US stores stocked with products and receive nothing in return. All they have is a FED account which is denominated in US dollars. The keep American stores stocked with their products and receive nothing in return, except their FED account statement, which is denominated in dollars.

The foreign sector, especially China, is dependent on US credit creation to fund their savings' desires in US financial assets. Our domestic credit creation literally funds their savings. On the other hand, we aren't dependent on them in any capacity to fund anything.

 

[Supposn]

We could NOT have these trade deficits if we did not at the same time, have a monetary and taxation policies that create massive distortions of real currency valuations and pricing in targeted importing or exporting nations.

Almost the entire world's paper currency situation is one rather large fiasco thanks to the world abandoning the GOLD STANDARD as it related to national balance of trade events ...

Editec, (excluding scarce and/or precious minerals integral within USA’s global trade) the remainder of our annual trade deficits of goods are PRIMARILY due to other nations’ inability or unwillingness to increase the purchasing powers of their nations’ wage earners.

This transferable Import Certificate proposal would to some extent increase USA’s numbers of jobs and median wage more than otherwise. These in turn are reflected by an increased GDP. Additionally this proposal’s an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods.

Regardless of what regulation or lack of U.S. dollar’s regulation, this trade proposal (within any reasonably conceivable U.S. monetary policy), would affect our economy in a manner superior to our current trade policy or any other trade policy concept that I’m aware of.

Wage and salary earners, those families at or below USA’s median wage, (i.e. that includes our nation’s entire middle income earners and their families). Employees and their families in aggregate pay almost the entire economic costs due to our annual trade deficits.
[Refer to the thread “ http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps.html “
or to the paragraph’s entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balances of trade”.
Also goggle “ wickipedia import certificates “].

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

We could NOT have these trade deficits if we did not at the same time, have a monetary and taxation policies that create massive distortions of real currency valuations and pricing in targeted importing or exporting nations.

Almost the entire world's paper currency situation is one rather large fiasco thanks to the world abandoning the GOLD STANDARD as it related to national balance of trade events ...

Editec, regarding the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate, our economy was not doing so well when we were on the gold standard and it does not do any worse due to management by the Federal Reserve Board. The FRB is composed of people and people at best are not consistently correct.

They cannot be expected to always perform well. Like a dog that sings while playing the piano for monkeys that ballroom dancing, it’s a wonder that they do any of it at all.

I‘m not a proponent of judges and jury panels because they are consistently correct. We should continue to grant them the power to arrive at determinations and the minimal discretion of determinations and policy that they reasonably require to perform their tasks, because we haven’t yet devised a superior method to accomplish their tasks. I have a similar opinion of our FRB.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Supposn]

We could NOT have these trade deficits if we did not at the same time, have a monetary and taxation policies that create massive distortions of real currency valuations and pricing in targeted importing or exporting nations.

Almost the entire world's paper currency situation is one rather large fiasco thanks to the world abandoning the GOLD STANDARD as it related to national balance of trade events

China devalues its currency (relative to the USD) to create jobs in China thus making Chinese goods cheaper to import into the USA and Western industrial nations.

Devalued USDs pay for these goods, which the Chinese government then dutifully converts into US debt instruments.

At the same time China's internal taxes (like VAT taxes) are waived on exported Chinese goods but IMPOSED on imported goods coming into China.

We wonder why we have a diminishing percentage of Americans working?

The above is a large part of why this has become our new reality, folks. ...

Editec, This transferable Import Certificate import certificate is primarily market rather than government driven. Determining the approximate value of goods is primarily a technical rather than a policy determination.

[Within this proposal it is not the accuracy of goods’ values but rather that each assessed valuation of goods be approximately in correct proportion to all other assessed shipments;
(i.e. imports, exports, similar or dissimilar goods should all be assessed in a similar manner and their values relative to each other be approximately correct in proportion to each other)].

As with many government determination tasks, there would be a system of hearings permitting interested parties to object and seek remedies for any grievously incorrect assessments. That permits principles’ direct and indirect competitors rights to oversee the publicly transparent assessment determinations. That’s a checks and balancing method to further support the integrity of the federal assessment processes.

Other than pure free trade, I’m aware of no proposed feasible trade policy that’s less subject to intervention from other non- directly involved entities, (including the federal government).
Unlike pure free trade, this proposal subsidizes USA’s exported goods will induce increased sum of our aggregate imports plus exports and will prevent any USA trade deficit of goods’ assessed values.

I’m aware of no proposed feasible trade policy that could accomplish all this at less net cost and the proposal’s entire direct net costs are passed on to the USA purchasers and users of imported goods to the extent the federal fees. The fees defray the federal government’s entire net direct costs. This proposal’s not a net source of government revenue.
importers of goods are required to surrender transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) to cover the assessed values of the goods they wish to bring into the USA; that is all that ‘s mandated upon individuals or organizations.

No existing or other proposed national trade policy is less subject to, or affected by any mischief perpetrated by any entity (including our federal government itself), that would undermine USA’s global trade. Any entity that attempted such mischief would do more harm to themselves than any possible harm to the USA would be extremely limited.

Respectfully, Supposn