Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs

[Supposn]

Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs:

I'm among the proponents of the Wikipedia's described version of an “Import Certificates”.

The policy's entire net costs are passed on to USA purchasers and users of imported goods which similarly can be done with a tariff policy.

Unlike tariffs, REGARDLESS of how small of price additions to USA purchasers of imported goods, this policy will extremely significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our domestic production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Similarly to tariffs, this policies minimum sustainable net costs, (which are passed on to USA purchasers and users of imports) are at least the federal direct expenses due to the trade policy.

Unlike tariffs, this unilateral trade policy is substantially more sensitive to market conditions rather than government determinations and is substantially IMMUNE from retaliation.

Federal direct expenditures due to the policy are passed on as federal fee-rates to exporters of USA goods that choose, (not required to pay) in order to receive valuable transferable Import Certificates with face values equal to the assessed values of their shipped USA goods.

Importers of goods are required to surrender the certificates with face values sufficient to cover the assessed values of their goods entering the USA.

Surrendered certificates are canceled. The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Eventually, both tariff and Import Certificate policies entire net costs are paid as increased prices of imported goods to USA purchasers and users of imported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs:

They both increase the prices of imports.
They both reduce our standard of living.

Unlike tariffs, this unilateral trade policy is substantially more sensitive to market conditions rather than government determinations and is substantially IMMUNE from retaliation.

You'd be subsidizing exports and punishing imports.
You think trading partners won't retaliate?

That's hilarious.

 

[Supposn]

Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs:

They both increase the prices of imports.
They both reduce our standard of living.

Unlike tariffs, this unilateral trade policy is substantially more sensitive to market conditions rather than government determinations and is substantially IMMUNE from retaliation.

You'd be subsidizing exports and punishing imports.
You think trading partners won't retaliate?

That's hilarious.

Wikipedia's USA unilateral proposed “Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

A USA Import Certificate policy itself does not subsidize USA's exports but it would enable global markets' behaviors to effectively accomplish that task.

Regarding retaliation within global trade, refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/retaliation-within-global-trade.679521/

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs:

They both increase the prices of imports.
They both reduce our standard of living.

Unlike tariffs, this unilateral trade policy is substantially more sensitive to market conditions rather than government determinations and is substantially IMMUNE from retaliation.

You'd be subsidizing exports and punishing imports.
You think trading partners won't retaliate?

That's hilarious.

Wikipedia's USA unilateral proposed “Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

A USA Import Certificate policy itself does not subsidize USA's exports but it would enable global markets' behaviors to effectively accomplish that task.

Regarding retaliation within global trade, refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/retaliation-within-global-trade.679521/

Respectfully, Supposn

The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Look at previous reactions to export subsidies.
Look at previous reactions to subsidies for exporters.
You'll notice your error.

“Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

Reducing the amount of imports, raising the price of imports.

What are 2 things that will reduce our standard of living?

 

[Supposn]

The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Look at previous reactions to export subsidies.
Look at previous reactions to subsidies for exporters.
You'll notice your error.

“Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

Reducing the amount of imports, raising the price of imports.

What are 2 things that will reduce our standard of living?

ToddsterPatriot, did you find a previously enacted example of Wikipedia's Import Certificate concept?
Due to a USA Import Certificate policy, markets' behaviors would effectively reduce prices of USA exported goods sold to foreign purchasers.

Among what reduces USA's quality of life are poor public transportation and failing to maintain and update our public and semi-public infrastructures.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Look at previous reactions to export subsidies.
Look at previous reactions to subsidies for exporters.
You'll notice your error.

“Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

Reducing the amount of imports, raising the price of imports.

What are 2 things that will reduce our standard of living?

ToddsterPatriot, did you find a previously enacted example of Wikipedia's Import Certificate concept?
Due to a USA Import Certificate policy, markets' behaviors would effectively reduce prices of USA exported goods sold to foreign purchasers.

Among what reduces USA's quality of life are poor public transportation and failing to maintain and update our public and semi-public infrastructures.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, did you find a previously enacted example of Wikipedia's Import Certificate concept?

Was there a previous example that also raised prices of imports and reduced our standard of living?

Due to a USA Import Certificate policy, markets' behaviors would effectively reduce prices of USA exported goods sold to foreign purchasers.

Yes, our trading partners love it when we subsidize exports and punish imports. LOL!

Among what reduces USA's quality of life are poor public transportation and failing to maintain and update our public and semi-public infrastructures.

Yup. Those too.

 

[Supposn]

The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Look at previous reactions to export subsidies.
Look at previous reactions to subsidies for exporters.
You'll notice your error.

“Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

Reducing the amount of imports, raising the price of imports.

What are 2 things that will reduce our standard of living?

ToddsterPatriot, you continue referring to a non-existing previous example; there's no example of global trade markets being affected by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” concept or any other version of Import Certificate policy.

Differing national trade policies affect their nation's global trade in differing manners. Nothing would entirely effect global trade in the same entire manner as would this version of Import Certificate policy.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

USA adoption of the Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would very significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits of goods while more than otherwise increasing our domestic products' productions. This consequentially increases our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Look at previous reactions to export subsidies.
Look at previous reactions to subsidies for exporters.
You'll notice your error.

“Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

Reducing the amount of imports, raising the price of imports.

What are 2 things that will reduce our standard of living?

ToddsterPatriot, you continue referring to a non-existing previous example; there's no example of global trade markets being affected by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” concept or any other version of Import Certificate policy.

Differing national trade policies affect their nation's global trade in differing manners. Nothing would entirely effect global trade in the same entire manner as would this version of Import Certificate policy.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

USA adoption of the Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would very significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits of goods while more than otherwise increasing our domestic products' productions. This consequentially increases our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

there's no example of global trade markets being affected by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” concept or any other version of Import Certificate policy.

Are there any examples of trading partners subsidizing exports?

What happened when they did? Retaliation wise?

Are there any examples of trading partners punishing imports?

What happened when they did? Retaliation wise?​

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, (1) It's contended differing national trade policies affect their nation's global trade in differing manners. Nothing would entirely effect a nation's global trade in the same entire manner as would this Wikipedia described version of Import Certificate policy. Do you disagree? Why would you disagree?

(2) Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

(3) You disagree with the contention that USA adoption of the Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would very significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits of goods while more than otherwise increasing our domestic products' productions. This consequentially increases our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

(4) I would suppose you also believe that if statement (3) were correct, both short term and long term foreign trade retaliation would make USA's adoption of the Import Certificate proposal to be net detrimental to our economy? Is that supposition correct?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, (1) It's contended differing national trade policies affect their nation's global trade in differing manners. Nothing would entirely effect a nation's global trade in the same entire manner as would this Wikipedia described version of Import Certificate policy. Do you disagree? Why would you disagree?

(2) Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

(3) You disagree with the contention that USA adoption of the Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would very significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits of goods while more than otherwise increasing our domestic products' productions. This consequentially increases our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

(4) I would suppose you also believe that if statement (3) were correct, both short term and long term foreign trade retaliation would make USA's adoption of the Import Certificate proposal to be net detrimental to our economy? Is that supposition correct?

Respectfully, Supposn

Nothing would entirely effect a nation's global trade in the same entire manner as would this Wikipedia described version of Import Certificate policy.

I agree, there would be huge impacts, many of them bad.

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

I've already shown you instances where they are beneficial.

You disagree with the contention that USA adoption of the Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would very significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits

I did? Where? I demand a link to a post where I did as you claim.

while more than otherwise increasing our domestic products' productions.

I made a suggestion that would increase our domestic production, reduce our trade deficit and increase GDP.
You mocked my suggestion. I guess a reduced trade deficit and higher GDP isn't always enough for you.

I would suppose you also believe that if statement (3) were correct, both short term and long term foreign trade retaliation would make USA's adoption of the Import Certificate proposal to be net detrimental to our economy? Is that supposition correct?

Nope.
Just pointing out the historical ignorance of your claim that the IC policy could not possibly result in retaliation.

 

[Supposn]

Nothing would entirely effect a nation's global trade in the same entire manner as would this Wikipedia described version of Import Certificate policy.

I agree, there would be huge impacts, many of them bad.

ToddsterPatriot, you're evading the question's point. Do you agree or disagree that to the extent trade policies differ, their effects upon their nation's economy may also to some extent differ?

You're not contending that to the extent of individual trade policies' differences, their effects upon their nations cannot also differ; or to the extent of nations economic differences, the same policy cannot affect their nation's economy in a different manner?

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

I've already shown you instances where they are beneficial.

ToddsterPatriot, you and I may argue as to how differing trade policies affect their nation's production of goods and services without regard for their nation's balance of trade, but the expenditure formula used to calculate GDP must regard it because the USA's spendings were for purchasing products that were not USA produced, or USA products were purchased with foreign spendings.

The expenditure formula's the most widely accepted formula used throughout the world. Any U.S. federal references to GDP is assumed to have been calculated by that formula unless any other formula is noted. I haven't seen such notices and I would suppose other formulas are rarely used. If those formulas do not reasonably arrive at a GDP similar to that of the expenditure formula, that alternate formula would be considered as faulty.
Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

You disagree with the contention that USA adoption of the Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would very significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits

I did? Where? I demand a link to a post where I did as you claim.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm pleased if I'm mistaken and we do agree that the Import Certificate formula would very significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

while more than otherwise increasing our domestic products' productions.

I made a suggestion that would increase our domestic production, reduce our trade deficit and increase GDP.
You mocked my suggestion. I guess a reduced trade deficit and higher GDP isn't always enough for you.

ToddsterPatriot, the purpose of Wikipedia's Import Certificate's method for reducing our trade deficit of goods and increasing our domestic production and numbers of jobs is to cause our median wage's purchasing power (and consequentially our nations median standard of living to improve. Your “Banana proposal” would not accomplish that for our aggregate national economy. I doubt the federal government or any other entity would choose to sustain your proposal.

I would suppose you also believe that if statement (3) were correct, both short term and long term foreign trade retaliation would make USA's adoption of the Import Certificate proposal to be net detrimental to our economy? Is that supposition correct?

Nope.
Just pointing out the historical ignorance of your claim that the IC policy could not possibly result in retaliation.

ToddsterPatriot, yes; you're correct and I'm wrong regarding this point. But I don't believe we should roll over and play dead when our nation's interests are at stake. We should deal with the trade retaliations that will begin even prior to USA commencing to enact Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy. We should “bite the bullet” and seek our much better economic future.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Syriusly]

The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Look at previous reactions to export subsidies.
Look at previous reactions to subsidies for exporters.
You'll notice your error.

“Import Certificates” policy would significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods n a manner that increases our domestic production and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. That would not reduce our quality of life.

Reducing the amount of imports, raising the price of imports.

What are 2 things that will reduce our standard of living?

ToddsterPatriot, did you find a previously enacted example of Wikipedia's Import Certificate concept?
Due to a USA Import Certificate policy, markets' behaviors would effectively reduce prices of USA exported goods sold to foreign purchasers.

Among what reduces USA's quality of life are poor public transportation and failing to maintain and update our public and semi-public infrastructures.
Respectfully, Supposn

You keep citing Wikipedia- as if that means something.

Anyone can write anything on Wikipedia.

What you have failed to provide is an actual citation of some evidence that this would work.

 

[Syriusly]

it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

If it is a fact- then it should be easy for you to provide some evidence of this fact.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing would entirely effect a nation's global trade in the same entire manner as would this Wikipedia described version of Import Certificate policy.

I agree, there would be huge impacts, many of them bad.

ToddsterPatriot, you're evading the question's point. Do you agree or disagree that to the extent trade policies differ, their effects upon their nation's economy may also to some extent differ?

You're not contending that to the extent of individual trade policies' differences, their effects upon their nations cannot also differ; or to the extent of nations economic differences, the same policy cannot affect their nation's economy in a different manner?

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

I've already shown you instances where they are beneficial.

ToddsterPatriot, you and I may argue as to how differing trade policies affect their nation's production of goods and services without regard for their nation's balance of trade, but the expenditure formula used to calculate GDP must regard it because the USA's spendings were for purchasing products that were not USA produced, or USA products were purchased with foreign spendings.

The expenditure formula's the most widely accepted formula used throughout the world. Any U.S. federal references to GDP is assumed to have been calculated by that formula unless any other formula is noted. I haven't seen such notices and I would suppose other formulas are rarely used. If those formulas do not reasonably arrive at a GDP similar to that of the expenditure formula, that alternate formula would be considered as faulty.
Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

You disagree with the contention that USA adoption of the Wikipedia's described Import Certificate policy would very significantly reduce our chronic annual trade deficits

I did? Where? I demand a link to a post where I did as you claim.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm pleased if I'm mistaken and we do agree that the Import Certificate formula would very significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

while more than otherwise increasing our domestic products' productions.

I made a suggestion that would increase our domestic production, reduce our trade deficit and increase GDP.
You mocked my suggestion. I guess a reduced trade deficit and higher GDP isn't always enough for you.

ToddsterPatriot, the purpose of Wikipedia's Import Certificate's method for reducing our trade deficit of goods and increasing our domestic production and numbers of jobs is to cause our median wage's purchasing power (and consequentially our nations median standard of living to improve. Your “Banana proposal” would not accomplish that for our aggregate national economy. I doubt the federal government or any other entity would choose to sustain your proposal.

I would suppose you also believe that if statement (3) were correct, both short term and long term foreign trade retaliation would make USA's adoption of the Import Certificate proposal to be net detrimental to our economy? Is that supposition correct?

Nope.
Just pointing out the historical ignorance of your claim that the IC policy could not possibly result in retaliation.

ToddsterPatriot, yes; you're correct and I'm wrong regarding this point. But I don't believe we should roll over and play dead when our nation's interests are at stake. We should deal with the trade retaliations that will begin even prior to USA commencing to enact Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy. We should “bite the bullet” and seek our much better economic future.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, you're evading the question's point.

The point is, you think this IC idea would easily fix our trade deficit with no negative impact.
I've shown, again and again, that your claim is unproven.

Do you agree or disagree that to the extent trade policies differ, their effects upon their nation's economy may also to some extent differ?

Allow me to give your deeply thought out question the deeply thought out answer it deserves. Duh!

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

Regardless of your opinion, I already showed you instances where your all encompassing claim is wrong.

I'm pleased if I'm mistaken and we do agree that the Import Certificate formula would very significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

When you made your claim, were you lying or simply wrong?

Your “Banana proposal” would not accomplish that for our aggregate national economy.

My proposal would reduce the trade deficit. You said that would result in higher GDP and more jobs.
Was your original claim wrong, or is your claim about my proposal wrong?

I doubt the federal government or any other entity would choose to sustain your proposal.

I doubt the federal government or any other entity would choose to sustain your IC proposal.​

 

[Supposn]

You keep citing Wikipedia- as if that means something.

Anyone can write anything on Wikipedia.

What you have failed to provide is an actual citation of some evidence that this would work.

Syriusly, I cite where the concept is more fully and well explained. I do not claim it's an authoritative site, But that it's a logical concept that may, (or may not) appeal to people that can read and have some confidence in their own logical judgment.
.
When I smoked cigars, I didn't need to see a cigar's band's name in order to judge the quality of the cigar I was smoking.
[There are no ex-tobacco addicts or ex-alcoholics. There are addicts that are now not smoking or now not drinking. I still yearn for a cigar after every good meal.]

There's no certain evidence that democracy “works”. There are those that contend the election of Donald Trump indicates that it doesn't work. I'm a populist and thus certainly a proponent of democracy. I prefer to believe that I would retain my preference for democracy even when it's of lesser convenience or popularity.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

If it is a fact- then it should be easy for you to provide some evidence of this fact.

... ToddsterPatriot, you and I may argue as to how differing trade policies affect their nation's production of goods and services without regard for their nation's balance of trade, but the expenditure formula used to calculate GDP must regard it because the USA's spendings were for purchasing products that were not USA produced, or USA products were purchased with foreign spendings.



The expenditure formula's the most widely accepted formula used throughout the world. Any U.S. federal references to GDP is assumed to have been calculated by that formula unless any other formula is noted. I haven't seen such notices and I would suppose other formulas are rarely used. If those formulas do not reasonably arrive at a GDP similar to that of the expenditure formula, that alternate formula would be considered as faulty.

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP. ...

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

If it is a fact- then it should be easy for you to provide some evidence of this fact.

... ToddsterPatriot, you and I may argue as to how differing trade policies affect their nation's production of goods and services without regard for their nation's balance of trade, but the expenditure formula used to calculate GDP must regard it because the USA's spendings were for purchasing products that were not USA produced, or USA products were purchased with foreign spendings.



The expenditure formula's the most widely accepted formula used throughout the world. Any U.S. federal references to GDP is assumed to have been calculated by that formula unless any other formula is noted. I haven't seen such notices and I would suppose other formulas are rarely used. If those formulas do not reasonably arrive at a GDP similar to that of the expenditure formula, that alternate formula would be considered as faulty.

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP. ...

Respectfully, Supposn

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

Baloney

Respectfully, Todd

 

[Supposn]

The point is, you think this IC idea would easily fix our trade deficit with no negative impact.
I've shown, again and again, that your claim is unproven.

easy - Google Search

achieved without great effort; presenting few difficulties.
"an easy way of retrieving information"
synonyms:
uncomplicated, undemanding, unchallenging, effortless, painless, trouble-free, facile, simple, straightforward, elementary; More
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I never posted “easy” or “no negative impact”, and I did admit Import Certificates, (as all trade policies) are not immune from trade retaliation.

Do you agree or disagree that to the extent trade policies differ, their effects upon their nation's economy may also to some extent differ?

Allow me to give your deeply thought out question the deeply thought out answer it deserves. Duh!

ToddsterPatriot, I'll accept that as an affirmative response.
.
Your “Banana proposal” would not accomplish that for our aggregate national economy.

My proposal would reduce the trade deficit. You said that would result in higher GDP and more jobs.
Was your original claim wrong, or is your claim about my proposal wrong?

ToddsterPatriot, the purpose of Wikipedia's Import Certificate's method for reducing our trade deficit of goods and increasing our domestic production and numbers of jobs is to cause our median wage's purchasing power (and consequentially our nations median standard of living to improve. Your “Banana proposal” would not accomplish that for our aggregate national economy. I doubt the federal government or any other entity would choose to sustain your proposal.

I doubt the federal government or any other entity would choose to sustain your proposal.

I doubt the federal government or any other entity would choose to sustain your IC proposal.

ToddsterPatriot, yes, we disagree.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

Baloney

Respectfully, Todd

factual definition - Google Search
adjective
adjective: factual

1. concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it.
   "a mixture of comment and factual information"
   synonyms: truthful, true, accurate, authentic, historical, genuine, fact-based; More
   true-to-life, correct, exact, honest, faithful, literal, verbatim, word for word, well documented, unbiased, objective, unvarnished;
   formalveridical
   "a factual report from the chairman"
   antonyms: fictitious
   • actually occurring.
     "cases mentioned are factual"
   //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, facts are they are no less true due to their being denied.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs:

I'm among the proponents of the Wikipedia's described version of an “Import Certificates”.

The policy's entire net costs are passed on to USA purchasers and users of imported goods which similarly can be done with a tariff policy.

Unlike tariffs, REGARDLESS of how small of price additions to USA purchasers of imported goods, this policy will extremely significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our domestic production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Similarly to tariffs, this policies minimum sustainable net costs, (which are passed on to USA purchasers and users of imports) are at least the federal direct expenses due to the trade policy.

Unlike tariffs, this unilateral trade policy is substantially more sensitive to market conditions rather than government determinations and is substantially IMMUNE from retaliation.

Federal direct expenditures due to the policy are passed on as federal fee-rates to exporters of USA goods that choose, (not required to pay) in order to receive valuable transferable Import Certificates with face values equal to the assessed values of their shipped USA goods.

Importers of goods are required to surrender the certificates with face values sufficient to cover the assessed values of their goods entering the USA.

Surrendered certificates are canceled. The differences between the federal fee-rate and global certificate markets price-rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA's exported goods at no additional cost to anyone.

Eventually, both tariff and Import Certificate policies entire net costs are paid as increased prices of imported goods to USA purchasers and users of imported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree with using import certificates, and would like to add some history. Free trade is supported by the idea of "comparative advantage" (CA) - that is, if you can make something better and cheaper, you should make it for others. The idea has problems.

CA comes from David Ricardo (1772 - 1823). Ricardo was actually trying to get rid of England's "corn laws." This was an import tariff on grains that caused high food prices. This meant money for the land owners - viewed as the last of the feudal systems power - and forced higher wages paid by the new and more powerful capitalists.

So Ricardo and others - partly out of hate for the feudal system - supported free trade, but always envisioned this as two countries trading goods. They never envisioned a country like America trading cash for goods.

If you trade only cash for goods, the foreign countries will sooner or later want to come to your country with that cash and by your assets. The only reason China and others have not done more of this is we have passed laws banning the purchase of some assets. Yet, check out the article, "How Could We Stop Chinese Investors from Buying US Companies?" Put another way, trade deficits give you a higher standard of living the same way running up debt on your credit card does.

PS: Economist James Galbraith points out that CA is a myth - that is, it is a myth that a country has a "natural advantage" in manufacturing - agriculture is different. If CA were true, Japan, with no natural advantage, would have never been able to compete in the American Auto market. It is more about government protecting industries while they are in their infancy.