A Republican trade deficit solution?

[Supposn]

"Renegotiated Trade", not Free Trade!

... I’m opposed to any other than a unilateral trade policy. Each sovereign nation should govern their own international trade policy.
I’m not opposed to international agreements for purposes other than economics.
I believe in the concept of “most favored nation that I believe is explicit or implied within every USA international agreement referring to regulating of goods at national borders.

The concept of “most favored nation” does not prohibit a nation from favoring their own entities but simply prohibits the agreeing nations from granting any other foreign nation more favorable treatment than is not granted to all other nation’s participating in the mutual international agreement. That I agree with.

If USA continues to internationally negotiate our border regulations, our trade policies will continue to be less beneficial to ourselves. I’m opposed to trading away the best interests of USA wage earners for the benefit of nations unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.
I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation. ...

It has more to do with politics, for me.

Laissez-fair, all the way, right wingers. Don't be socialists.

Daniel Palos,I’m opposed to international trade agreements for economic purposes.

I’m not opposed to international agreements for other mutual concerns such as concern for the earth’s environment or mutual agreed upon standards to facilitate trade transactions; (e.g. I’m a proponent of standard definitions of words and measurement methods).

Within the framework of our laws and federal jurisdictions, individual entities should negotiate their own trade transactions; that’s Laissez-fair.
Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

"Renegotiated Trade", not Free Trade!

... I’m opposed to any other than a unilateral trade policy. Each sovereign nation should govern their own international trade policy.
I’m not opposed to international agreements for purposes other than economics.
I believe in the concept of “most favored nation that I believe is explicit or implied within every USA international agreement referring to regulating of goods at national borders.

The concept of “most favored nation” does not prohibit a nation from favoring their own entities but simply prohibits the agreeing nations from granting any other foreign nation more favorable treatment than is not granted to all other nation’s participating in the mutual international agreement. That I agree with.

If USA continues to internationally negotiate our border regulations, our trade policies will continue to be less beneficial to ourselves. I’m opposed to trading away the best interests of USA wage earners for the benefit of nations unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.
I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation. ...

It has more to do with politics, for me.

Laissez-fair, all the way, right wingers. Don't be socialists.

Daniel Palos,I’m opposed to international trade agreements for economic purposes.

I’m not opposed to international agreements for other mutual concerns such as concern for the earth’s environment or mutual agreed upon standards to facilitate trade transactions; (e.g. I’m a proponent of standard definitions of words and measurement methods).

Within the framework of our laws and federal jurisdictions, individual entities should negotiate their own trade transactions; that’s Laissez-fair.
Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why are we "starting a trade war" regarding import/exports?

 

[Supposn]

"Renegotiated Trade", not Free Trade!

... I’m opposed to any other than a unilateral trade policy. Each sovereign nation should govern their own international trade policy.
I’m not opposed to international agreements for purposes other than economics.
I believe in the concept of “most favored nation that I believe is explicit or implied within every USA international agreement referring to regulating of goods at national borders.

The concept of “most favored nation” does not prohibit a nation from favoring their own entities but simply prohibits the agreeing nations from granting any other foreign nation more favorable treatment than is not granted to all other nation’s participating in the mutual international agreement. That I agree with.

If USA continues to internationally negotiate our border regulations, our trade policies will continue to be less beneficial to ourselves. I’m opposed to trading away the best interests of USA wage earners for the benefit of nations unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.
I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation. ...

It has more to do with politics, for me.

Laissez-fair, all the way, right wingers. Don't be socialists.

Daniel Palos,I’m opposed to international trade agreements for economic purposes.

I’m not opposed to international agreements for other mutual concerns such as concern for the earth’s environment or mutual agreed upon standards to facilitate trade transactions; (e.g. I’m a proponent of standard definitions of words and measurement methods).

Within the framework of our laws and federal jurisdictions, individual entities should negotiate their own trade transactions; that’s Laissez-fair.
Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why are we "starting a trade war" regarding import/exports?

Daniel Palos, the treaty of Paris was signed September 3, 1783. Great Britain relinquished their claims of authority over what then had evolved to be the United states of America. After the War of 1812, all U.S. territories were returned to us and Great Britain no longer molested our merchant ships. We’re not now at war with Great Britain because they do us no harm.

I’m not upset when nations restrict or entirely block USA products from entering their nations. They are sovereign nations with all the rights of sovereignty. I am opposed to our chronic annual trade deficits which reduce our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

There’s no trade war because we acquiesce. Our trade policy’s favors products imported from lower wage nations to the detriment of USA families’ dependent upon USA wages and all those to the extent that they are dependent upon enterprises sensitive to the financial conditions of USA employees and their dependents.

I don’t advocate USA instigating a trade war, but concern for foreign reactions is not a logical reason for the USA to refrain acting in our own best interests.
I’m a proponent of the policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. If USA enacted that policy, it would (more than otherwise) improve our GDP and numbers of job regardless of how other nations react to our new trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

"Renegotiated Trade", not Free Trade!

... I’m opposed to any other than a unilateral trade policy. Each sovereign nation should govern their own international trade policy.
I’m not opposed to international agreements for purposes other than economics.
I believe in the concept of “most favored nation that I believe is explicit or implied within every USA international agreement referring to regulating of goods at national borders.

The concept of “most favored nation” does not prohibit a nation from favoring their own entities but simply prohibits the agreeing nations from granting any other foreign nation more favorable treatment than is not granted to all other nation’s participating in the mutual international agreement. That I agree with.

If USA continues to internationally negotiate our border regulations, our trade policies will continue to be less beneficial to ourselves. I’m opposed to trading away the best interests of USA wage earners for the benefit of nations unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.
I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation. ...

It has more to do with politics, for me.

Laissez-fair, all the way, right wingers. Don't be socialists.

Daniel Palos,I’m opposed to international trade agreements for economic purposes.

I’m not opposed to international agreements for other mutual concerns such as concern for the earth’s environment or mutual agreed upon standards to facilitate trade transactions; (e.g. I’m a proponent of standard definitions of words and measurement methods).

Within the framework of our laws and federal jurisdictions, individual entities should negotiate their own trade transactions; that’s Laissez-fair.
Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why are we "starting a trade war" regarding import/exports?

I’m not upset when nations restrict or entirely block USA products from entering their nations. They are sovereign nations with all the rights of sovereignty. I am opposed to our chronic annual trade deficits which reduce our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

I was looking into this line of reasoning, for fallacy of false Cause purposes. I believe you need to participate more in the, "How to repatriate billions of dollars", thread. It seems more like, "smoke and mirrors", due to the complexity of our tax codes.

 

[Toro]

Mercantilism was discredited 200 years ago.

But that doesn't stop the Rube Wing of the Republican Party from clinging on to it.

 

[Supposn]

I was looking into this line of reasoning, for fallacy of false Cause purposes. I believe you need to participate more in the, "How to repatriate billions of dollars", thread. It seems more like, "smoke and mirrors", due to the complexity of our tax codes.

Daniel Palos, your prior post’s less than explicit. Can you better explain yourself?

I remind all readers of this thread’s title. The subject was to be the modifications of our corporate income tax regulations that Paul Ryan and other Republicans’ are proposing.

They’re proposing the elimination of tax deductions for purchases of foreign goods and services; (i.e. corporate income taxes are to be “destination based”. Would the IRS be able to enforce such a change in our laws? If it's enforceable, it would not, as would the proposed trade policy for Import Certificates would subsidize prices of USA exports. It would reduce our trade deficits and it would not require the federal government to assess the U.S. dollar values of shipments passing through our borders.

Some of the corporate tax deductions they’re proposing to eliminate may enable more reduction of corporate tax rates with less reduction of tax revenues. But I consider their proposing the elimination of corporate borrowing costs as a business expense to be problematic. Did they propose it as a method to facilitate enforcement of the eliminated deductions for importing products?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

I was looking into this line of reasoning, for fallacy of false Cause purposes. I believe you need to participate more in the, "How to repatriate billions of dollars", thread. It seems more like, "smoke and mirrors", due to the complexity of our tax codes.

Daniel Palos, your prior post’s less than explicit. Can you better explain yourself?

I remind all readers of this thread’s title. The subject was to be the modifications of our corporate income tax regulations that Paul Ryan and other Republicans’ are proposing.

They’re proposing the elimination of tax deductions for purchases of foreign goods and services; (i.e. corporate income taxes are to be “destination based”. Would the IRS be able to enforce such a change in our laws? If it's enforceable, it would not, as would the proposed trade policy for Import Certificates would subsidize prices of USA exports. It would reduce our trade deficits and it would not require the federal government to assess the U.S. dollar values of shipments passing through our borders.

Some of the corporate tax deductions they’re proposing to eliminate may enable more reduction of corporate tax rates with less reduction of tax revenues. But I consider their proposing the elimination of corporate borrowing costs as a business expense to be problematic. Did they propose it as a method to facilitate enforcement of the eliminated deductions for importing products?

Respectfully, Supposn

Here is some additional info. regarding this topic:

Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time. However, a deficit has been reported and growing in the United States for the past few decades, which has some economists worried. This means that large amounts of the U.S. dollar are being held by foreign nations, which may decide to sell at any time. A large increase in dollar sales can drive the value of the currency down, making it more costly to purchase imports.

Read more: Trade Deficit Trade Deficit
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

A current account deficit represents negative net sales abroad. Developed countries, such as the United States, often run current account deficits, while emerging economies often run current account surpluses. Countries that are very poor tend to run current account deficits.

Read more: Trade Deficit Trade Deficit
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

There are countries where it is almost certain that a trade deficit will occur. For example, the United States has had a trade deficit since 1976, in large part due to its imports of oil and consumer products. Conversely, China, a country that produces and exports many of the world's consumable goods, has recorded a trade surplus since 1995.

Read more: Balance Of Trade (BOT) Balance Of Trade - BOT
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations.

wrong, you are supporting endless trade wars between nations states counties regions and individuals. Best to let freedom reign, to let consumers decide from whom to buy and at what price. They know what is in their best interests better than soviet bureaucrat fascist liberal monopolists.

 

[Supposn]

Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations.

wrong, you are supporting endless trade wars between nations states counties regions and individuals. Best to let freedom reign, to let consumers decide from whom to buy and at what price. They know what is in their best interests better than soviet bureaucrat fascist liberal monopolists.

EdwardBaiamonte, I would suppose if you support “pure free trade”,you would also understand and support the concepts of national sovereignty and self-determination.

Regardless if you knew or were not aware of “laissez-fair’s” meaning, it’s expected that a logical proponent of “pure free trade” would fully support the statement, “Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations”.

It was my error to expect anything logical from you. When I concur with a basic tenet of pure free trade, (i.e. the concept of national determination; the right of each sovereign nation to determine their own national policies), you take exception to it.

I wish you well, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations”.

agreed, and those concerns should be for free trade among individuals, cities, states, nations, and regions. The alternative is endless trade wars, higher prices, crippled industries, lower standards of living, loss of individual freedom, loss of peaceful cooperation between individuals all over the world, and possible war since trade wars lead to military wars. Now do you understand?

 

[Supposn]

“Whatever, and under what conditions sovereign nations permit any entity from entering their jurisdictions, are the domestic concerns of the individual nations”.

agreed, and those concerns should be for free trade among individuals, cities, states, nations, and regions. The alternative is endless trade wars, higher prices, crippled industries, lower standards of living, loss of individual freedom, loss of peaceful cooperation between individuals all over the world, and possible war since trade wars lead to military wars. Now do you understand?

Edward Baiamonte, you’re an advocate of “pure free trade”, but opposed to sovereign nations respecting their mutual rights of self-determination?

If that’s the case, I believe you’re advocating our nation adopt a foolish foreign policy. But your belief would logically explain your response to my statement. Otherwise your response, (similar to most of your other posts), is illogical.

It’s much too expensive to declare a military war based purely upon a trade issue. I doubt if any substantial nation has done so within the past two centuries; I more strongly doubt if there has been such an occurrence in the past century. But nations have and I believe they may still be willing to declare war when their nations sovereignty is the issue.

If you’re implying armed conflict over trade issues, Your references to armed conflict over trade issues are nonsense.
Regarding “trade wars”, for purposes of appeasing other nations, USA should not acquiesce to our own economic detriment. Annual trade deficits drag upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs. they are economically and socially net detrimental to their nations.

You’re delusional and I suppose you'll never understand. But I wish you well, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Here is some additional info. regarding this topic:

Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time. However, a deficit has been reported and growing in the United States for the past few decades, which has some economists worried. This means that large amounts of the U.S. dollar are being held by foreign nations, which may decide to sell at any time. A large increase in dollar sales can drive the value of the currency down, making it more costly to purchase imports.

Read more: Trade Deficit Trade Deficit ...

Daniel Palos, thank you for additional information. I’ve read much of it prior to your posting the links and I take exception to some of it.

Regarding the paragraph “BREAKING DOWN 'Trade Deficit’
within the link Trade Deficit Trade Deficit :
“Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time”?

When in USA’s case; ¾ of a century, 2 centuries? In excess of a half century, each year USA has consistently shipped in more than we export.
To a substantial extent due to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits dragging upon our GDPs and numbers of jobs, USA’s economy has not performed as well as it should.

My children’s generation continue dealing with lesser opportunities and more difficulties than I faced. Similar to the generation that endured the 1929 depression, my children have (thus far in their lives), not experienced financial conditions superior to that of their father’s generation. They’ll to soon be retiring. I want better for my grandchildren’s generation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Here is some additional info. regarding this topic:

Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time. However, a deficit has been reported and growing in the United States for the past few decades, which has some economists worried. This means that large amounts of the U.S. dollar are being held by foreign nations, which may decide to sell at any time. A large increase in dollar sales can drive the value of the currency down, making it more costly to purchase imports.

Read more: Trade Deficit Trade Deficit ...

Daniel Palos, thank you for additional information. I’ve read much of it prior to your posting the links and I take exception to some of it.

Regarding the paragraph “BREAKING DOWN 'Trade Deficit’
within the link Trade Deficit Trade Deficit :
“Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time”?

When in USA’s case; ¾ of a century, 2 centuries? In excess of a half century, each year USA has consistently shipped in more than we export.
To a substantial extent due to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits dragging upon our GDPs and numbers of jobs, USA’s economy has not performed as well as it should.

My children’s generation continue dealing with lesser opportunities and more difficulties than I faced. Similar to the generation that endured the 1929 depression, my children have (thus far in their lives), not experienced financial conditions superior to that of their father’s generation. They’ll to soon be retiring. I want better for my grandchildren’s generation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Not sure why you believe what you do:

The United States is the world's largest national economy in nominal terms and second largest according to purchasing power parity (PPP), representing 22% of nominal global GDP and 17% of gross world product (GWP).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I want better for my grandchildren’s generation.

certainly crippling our industries will not help but making them more competitive will. Do you understand?

 

[danielpalos]

Better infrastructure can reduce costs for Commerce.

 

[Supposn]

Better infrastructure can reduce costs for Commerce.

Daniel Palos, most American agrees with you, even among those in the U.S. Congress. But members of congress can’t seem to get out of each other’s way and pass a bill to start repairing and updating our roads, bridges, tunnels, utility cables and pipe lines.

Due to USA’s neglect of our public and semi-public infrastructures, we statistically suffer extremely greater, (comparative to other modern nations’) occurrences of explosions, fires, derailments, burst pipes, down cables and brownouts and blackouts.

Our costs are in dollars, injuries, and lives. USA’s infrastructure’s do not match the technically advanced equipment and safety devices common within many other nations. The costs of our neglect are gauged in dollars, injuries, and lives. We’ve been paying and will increasingly pay more dearly for our neglect. (Within any other nation, I’m unaware of their requiring the replacement a major bridge that services a major highway over a substantial river).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[The Derp]

If you’re implying armed conflict over trade issues, Your references to armed conflict over trade issues are nonsense.Regarding “trade wars”, for purposes of appeasing other nations, USA should not acquiesce to our own economic detriment. Annual trade deficits drag upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs. they are economically and socially net detrimental to their nations.

Perhaps the Trade Federation should try to secede from the Republic. Oh wait, that's Star Wars...

 

[The Derp]

certainly crippling our industries will not help but making them more competitive will. Do you understand?

Clearly our industries are not being crippled. Far from it, the corporations are more profitable now than ever, despite flat-lining revenues. All that means is that corporations are cutting expenses like labor in order to increase the share price for the majority shareholders. That doesn't mean they're growing, it just means they're more profitable.

P = Profit
T = Tax Rate
R = Revenues
E = Expenses

P = T x (R-E)

In no case will P < $0 unless T = 100% or R < E.

You can increase P without increasing R. You do that either by cutting T or E. But cutting T or E does not increase R, and R is the indicator if the business is growing to justify expansion. If R is growing, then that means demand is growing which calls for an increase in supply and labor to fill that demand. But reducing T or increasing P does not increase R. Believing it does is magical thinking.

 

[The Derp]

Our costs are in dollars, injuries, and lives. USA’s infrastructure’s do not match the technically advanced equipment and safety devices common within many other nations. The costs of our neglect are gauged in dollars, injuries, and lives. We’ve been paying and will increasingly pay more dearly for our neglect. (Within any other nation, I’m unaware of their requiring the replacement a major bridge that services a major highway over a substantial river).

Truth. I live in Atlanta and two of the major highways here had massive issues; the I-85 bridge collapse, and the I-20 buckling. These infrastructure failures cost the city of Atlanta billions in commerce, made an already bad traffic situation worse, and show the need for infrastructure renewal and mass transit expansion.

 

[danielpalos]

Better infrastructure can reduce costs for Commerce.

Daniel Palos, most American agrees with you, even among those in the U.S. Congress. But members of congress can’t seem to get out of each other’s way and pass a bill to start repairing and updating our roads, bridges, tunnels, utility cables and pipe lines.

Due to USA’s neglect of our public and semi-public infrastructures, we statistically suffer extremely greater, (comparative to other modern nations’) occurrences of explosions, fires, derailments, burst pipes, down cables and brownouts and blackouts.

Our costs are in dollars, injuries, and lives. USA’s infrastructure’s do not match the technically advanced equipment and safety devices common within many other nations. The costs of our neglect are gauged in dollars, injuries, and lives. We’ve been paying and will increasingly pay more dearly for our neglect. (Within any other nation, I’m unaware of their requiring the replacement a major bridge that services a major highway over a substantial river).

Respectfully, Supposn

I make a motion to end the drug war as, unnecessary and improper, in light of your assessment.