Comparison of Import Certificates and Tariffs

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

It doesn't reduce our trade deficit?
It doesn't increase our domestic production?
It doesn't increase our numbers of jobs?
It doesn't increase our GDP?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

But you already admitted that's not the case.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Put another way, trade deficits give you a higher standard of living the same way running up debt on your credit card does.

That's not true.
I know what the interest rate is on my credit card, what's the rate on the trade deficit?
How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?

 

[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.

Put another way, trade deficits give you a higher standard of living the same way running up debt on your credit card does.

That's not true.
I know what the interest rate is on my credit card, what's the rate on the trade deficit?
How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?

The quote says "running up debt on your credit card." It does not say, when you are using your credit card responsibly. Yet, massive trade deficits are irresponsible, and yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets. Worse, in some cases they - along with American citizens - are moving the factories and technology to China.

About, "How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?" First, that "$10" goes to employ an American that does not need government assistance and can contribute to aggregate demand in the economy. Second, it is not "like personal debt!" It is like "national debt!" In fact, part of the problem with the national debt is lack of economic activity in the US and thus lack of tax revenue.

I once read a story that I don't know if it is true, but the economics are true. The President was asked if he would buy the rails for the transcontinental railway from Britain or America. The response, "Seems to me if we buy them from Britain, they have the money, and we have the rails. However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails."

You seem to fail to grasp this idea.

It is about exporting cash that others can use to hollow out this country's economy. Yet, I think I understand your question. It seems you are thinking, "If it does not impact me personally, what's the problem? I want the cheaper product!"

Yet, a question to ponder, if other countries keep accumulating more and more dollars, yet we will not let them buy our assets, what must eventually happen to the value of the dollar as an international currency?

 

[Supposn]

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

It doesn't reduce our trade deficit?
It doesn't increase our domestic production?
It doesn't increase our numbers of jobs?
It doesn't increase our GDP?

ToddsterPatriot, It doesn't reduce our trade deficit or increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs sustainably unless domestic banana producers can sell their banana crops at a profit. Your plan is to prohibit banana imports and produce as many bananas as we can sell. In aggregate, most of our population would be driven to consume much fewer bananas and it would not significantly increase, but rather it could actually to some extent reduce USA's GDP and numbers of jobs. Consider that the Banana Policy is only applicable to bananas and not to the entire national economy within which the banana enterprises function.

Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy would effectively limit USA's imports of goods to the extent of our exported goods, increase the prices of imports to USA purchasers and users, and increase USA's domestic productions of goods and services more than otherwise.

Markets rather than the government would determine which (if any) foreign items we would import less of. The IC policy could not prevent importation of any foreign item for which there's an effective USA demand.

The markets (rather than government) would continue to determine what's shipped where, when, and at what prices).

USA adoption of Wikipedia's described “Import Certificates” would significantly reduce our trade deficits of goods, and we can disagree regarding the extent of its increasing USA's domestic production, but it will increase it and thus also increase our numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

The difference between the federal price-rates that exporters of USA exported goods choose to pay in order to acquire transferable import certificates, and those certificates' global price rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA exports.

Retaliation in the form of contra tariff or other foreign charges upon USA exports would serve to reduce or eliminate price subsidies for USA exported goods. They're passed on to foreign purchasers of USA exported goods but are detrimental to the volume of USA's exported products.

For further discussion of global trade retaliation, refer to:
Retaliation within global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Put another way, trade deficits give you a higher standard of living the same way running up debt on your credit card does.

That's not true.
I know what the interest rate is on my credit card, what's the rate on the trade deficit?
How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?

The quote says "running up debt on your credit card." It does not say, when you are using your credit card responsibly. Yet, massive trade deficits are irresponsible, and yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets. Worse, in some cases they - along with American citizens - are moving the factories and technology to China.

About, "How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?" First, that "$10" goes to employ an American that does not need government assistance and can contribute to aggregate demand in the economy. Second, it is not "like personal debt!" It is like "national debt!" In fact, part of the problem with the national debt is lack of economic activity in the US and thus lack of tax revenue.

I once read a story that I don't know if it is true, but the economics are true. The President was asked if he would buy the rails for the transcontinental railway from Britain or America. The response, "Seems to me if we buy them from Britain, they have the money, and we have the rails. However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails."

You seem to fail to grasp this idea.

It is about exporting cash that others can use to hollow out this country's economy. Yet, I think I understand your question. It seems you are thinking, "If it does not impact me personally, what's the problem? I want the cheaper product!"

Yet, a question to ponder, if other countries keep accumulating more and more dollars, yet we will not let them buy our assets, what must eventually happen to the value of the dollar as an international currency?

The quote says "running up debt on your credit card."

Trade deficits aren't debt.

Yet, massive trade deficits are irresponsible

I bought an equivalent product and saved $1. No debt involved either.
How is that irresponsible?

and yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets.

Are they going to buy all of them? How long do you think that will take?

First, that "$10" goes to employ an American that does not need government assistance and can contribute to aggregate demand in the economy.

So I should have to buy a more expensive, less reliable GM product instead of the less expensive, more reliable import.......so I can keep that UAW guy employed?
How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Second, it is not "like personal debt!" It is like "national debt!"

The trade deficit isn't the national debt. My purchase isn't financed with debt.
No debt in sight. You sound confused.

In fact, part of the problem with the national debt is lack of economic activity in the US and thus lack of tax revenue.

A much, much, much, much, much (get the idea yet?), much larger part of the problem with the national debt is the government spending and wasting way too much money on stupid stuff they shouldn't be involved in.

However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails."​

​

You seem to fail to grasp this idea.​

I grasp it just fine. If we can get the same or better quality at the same or lower price, it makes perfect sense to buy the American rails. No need for government interference in the transaction.
​

It is about exporting cash that others can use to hollow out this country's economy.​

You left out a word, it's MY cash. ​

​

It seems you are thinking, "If it does not impact me personally, what's the problem? I want the cheaper product!"​

It seems you are thinking, "I don't care how it impacts him, I should have some say in how or where he spends his money, because I feel his purchases may be irresponsible"
​

Yet, a question to ponder, if other countries keep accumulating more and more dollars, yet we will not let them buy our assets, what must eventually happen to the value of the dollar as an international currency?​

If you won't let me buy from other countries, why does the value of the dollar matter?​

 

[Supposn]

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

But you already admitted that's not the case.

ToddsterPatriot, if I did, why haven't you quoted that post?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

It doesn't reduce our trade deficit?
It doesn't increase our domestic production?
It doesn't increase our numbers of jobs?
It doesn't increase our GDP?

ToddsterPatriot, It doesn't reduce our trade deficit or increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs sustainably unless domestic banana producers can sell their banana crops at a profit. Your plan is to prohibit banana imports and produce as many bananas as we can sell. In aggregate, most of our population would be driven to consume much fewer bananas and it would not significantly increase, but rather it could actually to some extent reduce USA's GDP and numbers of jobs. Consider that the Banana Policy is only applicable to bananas and not to the entire national economy within which the banana enterprises function.

Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy would effectively limit USA's imports of goods to the extent of our exported goods, increase the prices of imports to USA purchasers and users, and increase USA's domestic productions of goods and services more than otherwise.

Markets rather than the government would determine which (if any) foreign items we would import less of. The IC policy could not prevent importation of any foreign item for which there's an effective USA demand.

The markets (rather than government) would continue to determine what's shipped where, when, and at what prices).

USA adoption of Wikipedia's described “Import Certificates” would significantly reduce our trade deficits of goods, and we can disagree regarding the extent of its increasing USA's domestic production, but it will increase it and thus also increase our numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

The difference between the federal price-rates that exporters of USA exported goods choose to pay in order to acquire transferable import certificates, and those certificates' global price rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA exports.

Retaliation in the form of contra tariff or other foreign charges upon USA exports would serve to reduce or eliminate price subsidies for USA exported goods. They're passed on to foreign purchasers of USA exported goods but are detrimental to the volume of USA's exported products.

For further discussion of global trade retaliation, refer to:
Retaliation within global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, It doesn't reduce our trade deficit or increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs

Baloney. You've said,

"If a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise. A lesser GDP reflects upon, and is reflected upon by the nation’s lesser numbers of jobs during that same year"

How does reducing banana imports to zero not reduce our trade deficit?
If it reduced our trade deficit, how does it not increase our GDP?
If it causes a greater GDP, how does it not increase our number of jobs?

Your plan is to prohibit banana imports and produce as many bananas as we can sell. In aggregate, most of our population would be driven to consume much fewer bananas

Do you feel your IC plan would not result in American consumption of fewer bananas?
Or a lower consumption of any other imported products?

Consider that the Banana Policy is only applicable to bananas and not to the entire national economy within which the banana enterprises function.

When we see the benefit of increased GDP, per your claim that, " if a nation experienced an annual trade deficit, it consequentially reduced their total GDP that year" we can easily add other products to our import banning, GDP increasing, plan.

Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy would effectively limit USA's imports of goods to the extent of our exported goods, increase the prices of imports to USA purchasers and users, and increase USA's domestic productions of goods and services more than otherwise.

It would not significantly increase, but rather it could actually to some extent reduce USA's GDP and numbers of jobs.

The difference between the federal price-rates that exporters of USA exported goods choose to pay in order to acquire transferable import certificates, and those certificates' global price rates, serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA exports.

Yes, your plan would be very effective at increasing the prices we pay while reducing the prices consumers in other countries pay. Not sure how higher prices are going to increase our standard of living.......

Retaliation in the form of contra tariff or other foreign charges upon USA exports would serve to reduce or eliminate price subsidies for USA exported goods.

So it's possible that we'll pay higher prices, foreign governments will get increased revenues and we won't benefit from increased exports? Other than those 3 issues, it sounds like an awesome plan!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

But you already admitted that's not the case.

ToddsterPatriot, if I did, why haven't you quoted that post?
Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

 

[Supposn]

... I once read a story that I don't know if it is true, but the economics are true. The President was asked if he would buy the rails for the transcontinental railway from Britain or America. The response, "Seems to me if we buy them from Britain, they have the money, and we have the rails. However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails." ...

T.E.C. - Iowa, public infrastructures favoring the producers of exports, professional and well-qualified advice, opinions, research, and development studies are some examples of production supporting goods and services that may be provided by governments and universities at lesser or no costs to producers.
The actual costs of these production supporting goods and services all fully contribute to their nation's GDP; But because these costs were not fully reflected within export prices, those prices understate the actual exported goods and services.
A nation's annual trade deficit, (i.e. negative net balance of trade) reduced its GDP. To the extent that the prices of its imports do not fully reflect their exporters' full production costs, the goods and services that contributed to the production of the nation's imports are similarly understated.

Those were the production supporting tasks and products that contributed to a foreign nations domestic productions but because they're not entirely reflected within the prices of the products we import, we cannot account for the additional jobs we could have done if we had domestically produced rather than imported the goods.

Economies of scale are more conspicuous in manufacturing, but they occur to some extent in almost all industries. The lesser cost per unit of production is less available to U.S. Steel producers because they have a smaller potential home market of USA enterprises purchasing steel. USA has lesser steel purchasers due to lower-priced imports made with steel. Thus foreign cheaper steel producers are selling most of their production within their own nation and additional sales globally. This increased production volume further increases their price advantage over USA steel producers and also increases their nations producers of steel products advantages over USA producers of steel products.

The production supporting tasks and products that contributed to a foreign nations domestic productions but not entirely reflected within the prices of the products we import, cannot be accounted for. They're not something we freely obtained, but rather their costs are the unmeasured lost jobs, wages and other gains that were earned by others beyond our borders.

USA's net losses of domestic production due to our lost economies of scale are not accounted for as a cost due to our trade deficit because we similarly are unable to account for them.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

 

[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.

Put another way, trade deficits give you a higher standard of living the same way running up debt on your credit card does.

That's not true.
I know what the interest rate is on my credit card, what's the rate on the trade deficit?
How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?

The quote says "running up debt on your credit card." It does not say, when you are using your credit card responsibly. Yet, massive trade deficits are irresponsible, and yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets. Worse, in some cases they - along with American citizens - are moving the factories and technology to China.

About, "How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?" First, that "$10" goes to employ an American that does not need government assistance and can contribute to aggregate demand in the economy. Second, it is not "like personal debt!" It is like "national debt!" In fact, part of the problem with the national debt is lack of economic activity in the US and thus lack of tax revenue.

I once read a story that I don't know if it is true, but the economics are true. The President was asked if he would buy the rails for the transcontinental railway from Britain or America. The response, "Seems to me if we buy them from Britain, they have the money, and we have the rails. However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails."

You seem to fail to grasp this idea.

It is about exporting cash that others can use to hollow out this country's economy. Yet, I think I understand your question. It seems you are thinking, "If it does not impact me personally, what's the problem? I want the cheaper product!"

Yet, a question to ponder, if other countries keep accumulating more and more dollars, yet we will not let them buy our assets, what must eventually happen to the value of the dollar as an international currency?

The quote says "running up debt on your credit card."

Trade deficits aren't debt.

Yet, massive trade deficits are irresponsible

I bought an equivalent product and saved $1. No debt involved either.
How is that irresponsible?

and yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets.

Are they going to buy all of them? How long do you think that will take?

First, that "$10" goes to employ an American that does not need government assistance and can contribute to aggregate demand in the economy.

So I should have to buy a more expensive, less reliable GM product instead of the less expensive, more reliable import.......so I can keep that UAW guy employed?
How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Second, it is not "like personal debt!" It is like "national debt!"

The trade deficit isn't the national debt. My purchase isn't financed with debt.
No debt in sight. You sound confused.

In fact, part of the problem with the national debt is lack of economic activity in the US and thus lack of tax revenue.

A much, much, much, much, much (get the idea yet?), much larger part of the problem with the national debt is the government spending and wasting way too much money on stupid stuff they shouldn't be involved in.

However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails."

You seem to fail to grasp this idea.

I grasp it just fine. If we can get the same or better quality at the same or lower price, it makes perfect sense to buy the American rails. No need for government interference in the transaction.

It is about exporting cash that others can use to hollow out this country's economy.

You left out a word, it's MY cash.
It seems you are thinking, "If it does not impact me personally, what's the problem? I want the cheaper product!"

It seems you are thinking, "I don't care how it impacts him, I should have some say in how or where he spends his money, because I feel his purchases may be irresponsible"

Yet, a question to ponder, if other countries keep accumulating more and more dollars, yet we will not let them buy our assets, what must eventually happen to the value of the dollar as an international currency?

If you won't let me buy from other countries, why does the value of the dollar matter?​

About "Trade deficits aren't debt", they certainly contribute to the debt in the form of lost economic activity and lost tax revenue.

About, "I bought an equivalent product and saved $1. . . . How is that irresponsible?" In economics, one person's spending is another person's income. The point, you are not an island in America with the emphasis on "I." You and every other American should be interested in who gets the income from our spending.

More simply, tell a local businessperson that it does not make any difference to the local economy if you buy locally or not! They will probably tell you about the brown stuff you are filled with!

About "yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets", each asset that once added money to the American economy now sends part of the money to China. Many towns in America are seeing the same problem with illegal workers. They are paid a low wage and then send half to another country. No surprise, the town's businesses are disappearing.

About the "less reliable GM product", it is up to you to know which car is quality and which is not. Although it is true that capitalism often makes crap products in an attempt to maximize products, but that is a feature of capitalism and is found everywhere.

About "the government spending and wasting way too much money on stupid stuff", oh yes, that would be the endless wars and the ungodly amount of military spending. America is running an empire and the end-game of all empires is when their military expansion is so costly the center of the empire rots - as in schools, roads, and more.

About "No need for government interference in the transaction", this is bull crap. Governments interfere all the time for all sorts of reasons. Try living in the real world! Try importing illegal drugs, or toys with lead paint, I could go on forever.

About "my cash", again you are not an economic island - as much as you would like to think you are. Government has an interest in how the economy works, because without an economy there is no government and without a government there is no economy.

About "I (referring to me) should have some say in how or where he spends his money", it is not "I", but the government. And yes, the government runs the economy and has in interest in how people spend their money. As much as you would like to think economies are self-regulating; they are not! If they were self-regulating, capitalism would not have had two major crashes in 70 years and a recession during every presidency in between.

And finally, you are off the rails with this comment "If you won't let me buy from other countries, why does the value of the dollar matter?" This whole thread is about "balanced trade!"

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Regarding "We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year", I live in an Iowa town that gets its power from a coal fired plant in Omaha, Neb. Now imagine if, as a town, we put up so much "local" solar and wind, that the town no longer sent money to Omaha, but kept the money in the town. From here I will return your question, "How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Put another way, trade deficits give you a higher standard of living the same way running up debt on your credit card does.

That's not true.
I know what the interest rate is on my credit card, what's the rate on the trade deficit?
How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?

The quote says "running up debt on your credit card." It does not say, when you are using your credit card responsibly. Yet, massive trade deficits are irresponsible, and yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets. Worse, in some cases they - along with American citizens - are moving the factories and technology to China.

About, "How is buying an import for $9, versus $10 for a domestic equivalent, like running up personal debt?" First, that "$10" goes to employ an American that does not need government assistance and can contribute to aggregate demand in the economy. Second, it is not "like personal debt!" It is like "national debt!" In fact, part of the problem with the national debt is lack of economic activity in the US and thus lack of tax revenue.

I once read a story that I don't know if it is true, but the economics are true. The President was asked if he would buy the rails for the transcontinental railway from Britain or America. The response, "Seems to me if we buy them from Britain, they have the money, and we have the rails. However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails."

You seem to fail to grasp this idea.

It is about exporting cash that others can use to hollow out this country's economy. Yet, I think I understand your question. It seems you are thinking, "If it does not impact me personally, what's the problem? I want the cheaper product!"

Yet, a question to ponder, if other countries keep accumulating more and more dollars, yet we will not let them buy our assets, what must eventually happen to the value of the dollar as an international currency?

The quote says "running up debt on your credit card."

Trade deficits aren't debt.

Yet, massive trade deficits are irresponsible

I bought an equivalent product and saved $1. No debt involved either.
How is that irresponsible?

and yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets.

Are they going to buy all of them? How long do you think that will take?

First, that "$10" goes to employ an American that does not need government assistance and can contribute to aggregate demand in the economy.

So I should have to buy a more expensive, less reliable GM product instead of the less expensive, more reliable import.......so I can keep that UAW guy employed?
How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Second, it is not "like personal debt!" It is like "national debt!"

The trade deficit isn't the national debt. My purchase isn't financed with debt.
No debt in sight. You sound confused.

In fact, part of the problem with the national debt is lack of economic activity in the US and thus lack of tax revenue.

A much, much, much, much, much (get the idea yet?), much larger part of the problem with the national debt is the government spending and wasting way too much money on stupid stuff they shouldn't be involved in.

However, if we buy them from America, we have the money, and we have the rails."

You seem to fail to grasp this idea.

I grasp it just fine. If we can get the same or better quality at the same or lower price, it makes perfect sense to buy the American rails. No need for government interference in the transaction.

It is about exporting cash that others can use to hollow out this country's economy.

You left out a word, it's MY cash.
It seems you are thinking, "If it does not impact me personally, what's the problem? I want the cheaper product!"

It seems you are thinking, "I don't care how it impacts him, I should have some say in how or where he spends his money, because I feel his purchases may be irresponsible"

Yet, a question to ponder, if other countries keep accumulating more and more dollars, yet we will not let them buy our assets, what must eventually happen to the value of the dollar as an international currency?

If you won't let me buy from other countries, why does the value of the dollar matter?​

About "Trade deficits aren't debt", they certainly contribute to the debt in the form of lost economic activity and lost tax revenue.

About, "I bought an equivalent product and saved $1. . . . How is that irresponsible?" In economics, one person's spending is another person's income. The point, you are not an island in America with the emphasis on "I." You and every other American should be interested in who gets the income from our spending.

More simply, tell a local businessperson that it does not make any difference to the local economy if you buy locally or not! They will probably tell you about the brown stuff you are filled with!

About "yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets", each asset that once added money to the American economy now sends part of the money to China. Many towns in America are seeing the same problem with illegal workers. They are paid a low wage and then send half to another country. No surprise, the town's businesses are disappearing.

About the "less reliable GM product", it is up to you to know which car is quality and which is not. Although it is true that capitalism often makes crap products in an attempt to maximize products, but that is a feature of capitalism and is found everywhere.

About "the government spending and wasting way too much money on stupid stuff", oh yes, that would be the endless wars and the ungodly amount of military spending. America is running an empire and the end-game of all empires is when their military expansion is so costly the center of the empire rots - as in schools, roads, and more.

About "No need for government interference in the transaction", this is bull crap. Governments interfere all the time for all sorts of reasons. Try living in the real world! Try importing illegal drugs, or toys with lead paint, I could go on forever.

About "my cash", again you are not an economic island - as much as you would like to think you are. Government has an interest in how the economy works, because without an economy there is no government and without a government there is no economy.

About "I (referring to me) should have some say in how or where he spends his money", it is not "I", but the government. And yes, the government runs the economy and has in interest in how people spend their money. As much as you would like to think economies are self-regulating; they are not! If they were self-regulating, capitalism would not have had two major crashes in 70 years and a recession during every presidency in between.

And finally, you are off the rails with this comment "If you won't let me buy from other countries, why does the value of the dollar matter?" This whole thread is about "balanced trade!"

About "Trade deficits aren't debt", they certainly contribute to the debt in the form of lost economic activity and lost tax revenue.

Cool. How much lost economic activity last year because we imported $132 billion in crude, compared to just using $132 billion less crude?

In economics, one person's spending is another person's income.

That foreign company that got my $9, did they eat the money?

About "yes, the Chinese are coming to America to buy our assets", each asset that once added money to the American economy now sends part of the money to China.

You never did answer. Are they going to buy all of them? How long do you think that will take?

Many towns in America are seeing the same problem with illegal workers. They are paid a low wage and then send half to another country.

Boot the illegals. Today.

About the "less reliable GM product", it is up to you to know which car is quality and which is not.

You never did answer. How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

About "my cash", again you are not an economic island - as much as you would like to think you are.

Dah, comrade!

and without a government there is no economy.

Baloney.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Regarding "We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year", I live in an Iowa town that gets its power from a coal fired plant in Omaha, Neb. Now imagine if, as a town, we put up so much "local" solar and wind, that the town no longer sent money to Omaha, but kept the money in the town. From here I will return your question, "How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

"How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

Well, considering the fact that the wind and solar will never pay for themselves, I'd say your local GDP would drop.

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

Well, that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want, eh comrade?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Regarding "We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year", I live in an Iowa town that gets its power from a coal fired plant in Omaha, Neb. Now imagine if, as a town, we put up so much "local" solar and wind, that the town no longer sent money to Omaha, but kept the money in the town. From here I will return your question, "How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

"How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

Well, considering the fact that the wind and solar will never pay for themselves, I'd say your local GDP would drop.

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

Well, that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want, eh comrade?

It is sad when I have to explain to someone that "questions do not make an argument!"

As in:

1. How much lost economic activity last year. . . ?

2. The foreign company . . . did they eat the money?

3. How long do you think that will take?

4. How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Finally at the end, we get the comment "baloney" in response to "without a government there is no economy." If you go to Investopedia.com and find the article "What If There Were No Government?" you find this as the "immediate" response to no government. The article goes on to explain the long term impact.

(Quote)

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets. U.S. federal debt is the largest single investment instrument in the market, and the disappearance of a federal government would have everyone scrambling to figure out who, if anybody, would honor that debt. Moreover, since each and every U.S. dollar is essentially a debt instrument backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government", what would that be worth (and also, of the billions of dollars of reserves held around the world in U.S. dollars) with no U.S. government?

Suffice it to say, the equity markets would also go absolutely haywire. So much of what is taken for granted in business - including taxes, regulations and the smooth operation of interstate and international trade - is facilitated or overseen by the federal government, and nobody would have any immediate answers as how that would continue. Likewise, what would happen to corporate profits if the federal government vanished as a customer? In such an environment, gold and silver would likely skyrocket, as speculators reassured themselves that precious metals would always be worth something in trade.

Perhaps contrary to expectation, there would not necessarily be full-scale bedlam and anarchy. Police are funded and administered at state and municipal levels, and while the National Guard is technically part of the U.S. Army and Air Force, it is still operates at the state level and could be called upon by governors to maintain order.

(End quote)

You will notice that the only thing that stops "full-scale bedlam and anarchy" is "local government." So again "without government there is no economy!!!!!!!"

In the other post, we get this comment "that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want." Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits. If quality were an issue the term "planned obsolescence" would not be a part of capitalism.

Plus, the price has nothing to do with you! Price is about the competition that may, for a time, exist. However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition, and once that is accomplished, it is all about "monopoly pricing." You know; the kind of monopoly pricing found in America today!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Regarding "We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year", I live in an Iowa town that gets its power from a coal fired plant in Omaha, Neb. Now imagine if, as a town, we put up so much "local" solar and wind, that the town no longer sent money to Omaha, but kept the money in the town. From here I will return your question, "How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

"How much higher would our (local) GDP have been if" this happened?

Well, considering the fact that the wind and solar will never pay for themselves, I'd say your local GDP would drop.

The point, your spending is another person's income, and it makes a difference who that person is!

Well, that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want, eh comrade?

It is sad when I have to explain to someone that "questions do not make an argument!"

As in:

1. How much lost economic activity last year. . . ?

2. The foreign company . . . did they eat the money?

3. How long do you think that will take?

4. How much more should I be responsibly forced to spend?

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Finally at the end, we get the comment "baloney" in response to "without a government there is no economy." If you go to Investopedia.com and find the article "What If There Were No Government?" you find this as the "immediate" response to no government. The article goes on to explain the long term impact.

(Quote)

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets. U.S. federal debt is the largest single investment instrument in the market, and the disappearance of a federal government would have everyone scrambling to figure out who, if anybody, would honor that debt. Moreover, since each and every U.S. dollar is essentially a debt instrument backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government", what would that be worth (and also, of the billions of dollars of reserves held around the world in U.S. dollars) with no U.S. government?

Suffice it to say, the equity markets would also go absolutely haywire. So much of what is taken for granted in business - including taxes, regulations and the smooth operation of interstate and international trade - is facilitated or overseen by the federal government, and nobody would have any immediate answers as how that would continue. Likewise, what would happen to corporate profits if the federal government vanished as a customer? In such an environment, gold and silver would likely skyrocket, as speculators reassured themselves that precious metals would always be worth something in trade.

Perhaps contrary to expectation, there would not necessarily be full-scale bedlam and anarchy. Police are funded and administered at state and municipal levels, and while the National Guard is technically part of the U.S. Army and Air Force, it is still operates at the state level and could be called upon by governors to maintain order.

(End quote)

You will notice that the only thing that stops "full-scale bedlam and anarchy" is "local government." So again "without government there is no economy!!!!!!!"

In the other post, we get this comment "that other person better do a good job getting me the price and quality I want." Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits. If quality were an issue the term "planned obsolescence" would not be a part of capitalism.

Plus, the price has nothing to do with you! Price is about the competition that may, for a time, exist. However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition, and once that is accomplished, it is all about "monopoly pricing." You know; the kind of monopoly pricing found in America today!

Again, "questions do not make an argument!"

Well, if you can't find the answers to the questions, you'll never see the errors in your claims.

If America woke up to no federal government, there would be absolute chaos in the financial markets.

Yup, don't doubt it for a second.
But the claim wasn't, "with no federal government, there would be chaos in the financial markets"

The claim was, " without a government there is no economy"
You don't need an article to see the error in that claim, you just need a little knowledge of history.
Or a dictionary.

economy: The state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money.

economy | Definition of economy in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Now, do you believe if the federal government was wiped out by an asteroid that there would be no production and consumption? That no one would have goods and services to offer? That there would be no money supply?

Capitalism is not about "price and quality." It is about profits.

Really? General Motors is free to make crappy cars at inflated prices because all that matters is profit?
I'm not free to refuse to buy their product and buy a better, more reliable, cheaper import with my own money?
Are you going to force me to buy the crappy GM product because, " one person's spending is another person's income"?

I always thought capitalism was about meeting customer demands. Companies that can do that, profitably, succeed and continue. Companies that cannot do that profitably, fail and disappear.

However, capitalism is not about competition. Capitalism is about eliminating competition,

I'm the guy in favor of competition, freely making choices with my own money.
You're the guy complaining that I'm buying from someone besides GM.

 

[Supposn]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

I'm among the advocates for USA adopting the policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article because it would significantly reduce our nation's chronic annual trade deficits in a manner that would increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs and their wages' purchasing powers more than otherwise.
Why would I want to speculate upon the theoretical extent of detriment that might occur due to your proposal that I consider would be net detrimental to our nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Many who are aware of the ”Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006” text find it has faults that could have been easily corrected:
They regret that assessments would not be adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. We should discourage the export of cast gold paper weights encrusted with gems in order to facilitate importing high-tech or labor intensive goods. This fault could severely undermine the bill’s economic benefit to our nation.
Natural gas and oil should have also been included in such a scarce or precious minerals list. The proposal itself should not favor the export or inhibit the import of such scarce minerals. (The original U.S. Senate draft temporarily (for only 5 years) excluded the entire value of goods containing petroleum).
The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Respectfully, Supposn

We imported $132 billion worth of crude last year.
How much higher would our GDP have been if we had banned oil imports?

I'm among the advocates for USA adopting the policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article because it would significantly reduce our nation's chronic annual trade deficits in a manner that would increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs and their wages' purchasing powers more than otherwise.
Why would I want to speculate upon the theoretical extent of detriment that might occur due to your proposal that I consider would be net detrimental to our nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why would I want to speculate upon the theoretical extent of detriment that might occur due to your proposal that I consider would be net detrimental to our nation?

When you make sweeping claims, "annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP",
people who are interested in the topic would like you to discuss apparent holes in your claim.

I guess you can admit your sweeping claim was in error, show that the apparent hole isn't really a hole, or run away. Again.