USA goods could be competitively priced

[KissMy]

The constitution says Federal Government could only be funded by trade tariffs. Now they tax workers & refuse to tariff those countries who tariff our exports. That's the way it was here until 1913

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should look at what American motorcycle and automakers did in the past when the US government made their foreign competition more expensive. ... Consider that the administration has done the following: ...
... https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.pdf

... When Japanese lower priced vehicles being permitted into the USA was reduced, CATO alleges USA vehicle manufacturers' individually did not compete to regain and increase their shares of the USA marketplace. They chose to produce lesser numbers of vehicles, higher priced vehicles and unjustifiably increased the prices of all those vehicles they did produce. CATO did not explicitly accuse, but strongly implies the price increases of USA goods were unjustified and additionally, USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws.
Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive markets and less confidence in CATO.

So why do you deny prices of domestic goods will increase if your IC plan is implemented?

Toddsterpatriot, I'm assuming what CATO published is true. I seem to recall something similar in the year that President Reagan rescued Harley-Davis, but I don't trust to memory.
.
Cato's implications and accusations that are not explicitly stated and are not supported by facts to indicate USA vehicles price increases were entirely or even partially due to the reduced volumes of Japanese imported vehicles.
If a USA manufacturer could produce a lower priced vehicle and capture a greater share of USA marketplaces, they would have much more profited. CATO's implied motivations for increased prices only make logical sense if (as I speculated), USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws. But CATO doesn't make such an accusation.
.
You're a long way from making a convincing argument that reducing foreign competition is a cause for otherwise unjustified price increases of products produced by USA producers competing with each other. Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive marketplaces and less confidence in CATO.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

Cato's implications and accusations that are not explicitly stated and are not supported by facts to indicate USA vehicles price increases were entirely or even partially due to the reduced volumes of Japanese imported vehicles.

They made 300,000 fewer vehicles but made an additional $8.9 billion in profit.
At the same time that the Japanese reduced their cars exported to the US by about 150,000.
Interesting coincidence.

I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive marketplaces and less confidence in CATO.

Ummmm....the untrustworthy CATO author works for the Brookings Institution.

If a USA manufacturer could produce a lower priced vehicle and capture a greater share of USA marketplaces, they would have much more profited.

By reducing Japanese imports by 150,000 vehicles, every US manufacturer captured a greater share of the market. And seeing that they reduced their own production and massively increased their profits at the same time, what makes you think other US manufacturers wouldn't do the same thing if the IC plan is implemented?

 

[Supposn]

... CATO did not explicitly accuse, but strongly implies the price increases of USA goods were unjustified and additionally, USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws.
Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive markets and less confidence in CATO. ...
... Cato's implications and accusations that are not explicitly stated and are not supported by facts to indicate USA vehicles price increases were entirely or even partially due to the reduced volumes of Japanese imported vehicles.
If a USA manufacturer could produce a lower priced vehicle and capture a greater share of USA marketplaces, they would have much more profited. CATO's implied motivations for increased prices only make logical sense if (as I speculated), USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws. But CATO doesn't make such an accusation.
.
You're a long way from making a convincing argument that reducing foreign competition is a cause for otherwise unjustified price increases of products produced by USA producers competing with each other. Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive marketplaces and less confidence in CATO. ...
... Cato's implications and accusations that are not explicitly stated and are not supported by facts to indicate USA vehicles price increases were entirely or even partially due to the reduced volumes of Japanese imported vehicles. ...

By reducing Japanese imports by 150,000 vehicles, every US manufacturer captured a greater share of the market. And seeing that they reduced their own production and massively increased their profits at the same time, what makes you think other US manufacturers wouldn't do the same thing if the IC plan is implemented?

Toddserpatriot, repeating CATO's implied accusation is not confirmation of their validity. There's no logical reason to believe that the reduction or even the elimination of USA's trade deficits would encourage competing USA producers of goods to reduce or cease the competition among themselves and thus risk being found in violation of U.S. federal anti-trust laws.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... CATO did not explicitly accuse, but strongly implies the price increases of USA goods were unjustified and additionally, USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws.
Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive markets and less confidence in CATO. ...
... Cato's implications and accusations that are not explicitly stated and are not supported by facts to indicate USA vehicles price increases were entirely or even partially due to the reduced volumes of Japanese imported vehicles.
If a USA manufacturer could produce a lower priced vehicle and capture a greater share of USA marketplaces, they would have much more profited. CATO's implied motivations for increased prices only make logical sense if (as I speculated), USA manufacturers may have conspired to act in violation of USA's anti-trust laws. But CATO doesn't make such an accusation.
.
You're a long way from making a convincing argument that reducing foreign competition is a cause for otherwise unjustified price increases of products produced by USA producers competing with each other. Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive marketplaces and less confidence in CATO. ...
... Cato's implications and accusations that are not explicitly stated and are not supported by facts to indicate USA vehicles price increases were entirely or even partially due to the reduced volumes of Japanese imported vehicles. ...

By reducing Japanese imports by 150,000 vehicles, every US manufacturer captured a greater share of the market. And seeing that they reduced their own production and massively increased their profits at the same time, what makes you think other US manufacturers wouldn't do the same thing if the IC plan is implemented?

Toddserpatriot, repeating CATO's implied accusation is not confirmation of their validity. There's no logical reason to believe that the reduction or even the elimination of USA's trade deficits would encourage competing USA producers of goods to reduce or cease the competition among themselves and thus risk being found in violation of U.S. federal anti-trust laws.

Respectfully, Supposn

repeating CATO's implied accusation

That's the Brookings Institute.

There's no logical reason to believe that the reduction .......

Of competing goods or a rise in their prices would lead to higher US prices?
You must be joking.

or cease the competition among themselves and thus risk being found in violation of U.S. federal anti-trust laws.

Are US sugar producers in violation of the law?
Or is it just a coincidence that domestic sugar prices are so much higher than world prices?

How much does the US economy benefit from the higher prices we suffer due to government restrictions?

 

[Supposn]

... You're a long way from making a convincing argument that reducing foreign competition is a cause for otherwise unjustified price increases of products produced by USA producers competing with each other. Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive marketplaces and less confidence in CATO. ...

repeating CATO's implied accusation

That's the Brookings Institute.

Toddsterpatriot, No one disputes that eliminating or reducing USA imports of products would better enable remaining USA competing USA producers to increase their prices. (Also, they would better enable additional USA enterprises to join the competition).

Cato Institute's and their cited Brooking Institute's publications do not present any logical causes and effects arguments supporting a contention of import competition reduction being a cause for competition among remaining USA producers to reduce or be eliminated; (i.e. Cato and Brooking institutes papers do not demonstrate cause and effect).

To accept those institutes' implied accusations as valid, require our accepting the concept of USA competitive marketplaces was undermined to the extent that free competitive and equitable competing USA enterprises didn't exist or our federal anti-trust regulations were insufficient. The institutes are contending that USA enterprises are insufficiently regulated? You agree with that?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... You're a long way from making a convincing argument that reducing foreign competition is a cause for otherwise unjustified price increases of products produced by USA producers competing with each other. Free trade is CATO's primary agenda. I don't know, but I have more confidence in USA competitive marketplaces and less confidence in CATO. ...

repeating CATO's implied accusation

That's the Brookings Institute.

Toddsterpatriot, No one disputes that eliminating or reducing USA imports of products would better enable remaining USA competing USA producers to increase their prices. (Also, they would better enable additional USA enterprises to join the competition).

Cato Institute's and their cited Brooking Institute's publications do not present any logical causes and effects arguments supporting a contention of import competition reduction being a cause for competition among remaining USA producers to reduce or be eliminated; (i.e. Cato and Brooking institutes papers do not demonstrate cause and effect).

To accept those institutes' implied accusations as valid, require our accepting the concept of USA competitive marketplaces was undermined to the extent that free competitive and equitable competing USA enterprises didn't exist or our federal anti-trust regulations were insufficient. The institutes are contending that USA enterprises are insufficiently regulated? You agree with that?

Respectfully, Supposn

No one disputes that eliminating or reducing USA imports of products would better enable remaining USA competing USA producers to increase their prices.

Cool.

To accept those institutes' implied accusations as valid,

But you'll dispute it anyway.

The institutes are contending that USA enterprises are insufficiently regulated?

Where did they contend that?

I notice you didn't comment on sugar restrictions and higher domestic prices.........

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, No one disputes that eliminating or reducing USA imports of products would better enable remaining USA competing USA producers to increase their prices. (Also, they would better enable additional USA enterprises to join the competition).

To accept those institutes' implied accusations as valid, require our accepting the concept of USA competitive marketplaces was undermined to the extent that free competitive and equitable competing USA enterprises didn't exist or our federal anti-trust regulations were insufficient. The institutes are contending that USA enterprises are insufficiently regulated? You agree with that?

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, No one disputes that eliminating or reducing USA imports of products would better enable remaining USA competing USA producers to increase their prices.

Cool.

To accept those institutes' implied accusations as valid,

But you'll dispute it anyway.

Toddsterpatriot, “enable” and “causes” are not synonyms. Respectfully, Supposn

The institutes are contending that USA enterprises are insufficiently regulated.

Where did they contend that? ...

Toddsterpatriot, acceptance of those institutions' implied accusations as valid, logically impels concluding due to reduced foreign competition, USA vehicle manufacturers conspired among themselves to increase prices of USA produced vehicle; (i.e. USA vehicle manufacturers violated or successfully evaded U.S. federal anti-trust laws.

Thus, those accepting Cato and Brookings institutes' implied accusations and are proponents of USA's domestic marketplaces remaining equitable competitive marketplaces, are impelled to also conclude: USA's federal anti-trust laws are less than effective and/or less than enforceable.

If you contend that Cato and Brookings institutes' implied accusations are valid, you're logically impelled to accept USA's federal anti-trust laws failed to achieve their purposes.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Are US sugar producers in violation of the law?
Or is it just a coincidence that domestic sugar prices are so much higher than world prices?

How much does the US economy benefit from the higher prices we suffer due to government restrictions?

Toddsterpatriot, the commodity price support policy administered U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The policy supports a narrow list of specifically favored USA commodities as chosen and determined by the U.S. Congress.
It effectively behaves as a legally determined minimum price for those commodities within USA marketplaces.
I'm not a proponent of the policy and do not perceive us deriving any net national benefit from it. But it certainly protects USA producers of those favored agricultural commodities from foreign dumping into USA or global markets.

What law do you believe is being violated? What's your point?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, No one disputes that eliminating or reducing USA imports of products would better enable remaining USA competing USA producers to increase their prices. (Also, they would better enable additional USA enterprises to join the competition).

To accept those institutes' implied accusations as valid, require our accepting the concept of USA competitive marketplaces was undermined to the extent that free competitive and equitable competing USA enterprises didn't exist or our federal anti-trust regulations were insufficient. The institutes are contending that USA enterprises are insufficiently regulated? You agree with that?

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, No one disputes that eliminating or reducing USA imports of products would better enable remaining USA competing USA producers to increase their prices.

Cool.

To accept those institutes' implied accusations as valid,

But you'll dispute it anyway.

Toddsterpatriot, “enable” and “causes” are not synonyms. Respectfully, Supposn

The institutes are contending that USA enterprises are insufficiently regulated.

Where did they contend that? ...

Toddsterpatriot, acceptance of those institutions' implied accusations as valid, logically impels concluding due to reduced foreign competition, USA vehicle manufacturers conspired among themselves to increase prices of USA produced vehicle; (i.e. USA vehicle manufacturers violated or successfully evaded U.S. federal anti-trust laws.

Thus, those accepting Cato and Brookings institutes' implied accusations and are proponents of USA's domestic marketplaces remaining equitable competitive marketplaces, are impelled to also conclude: USA's federal anti-trust laws are less than effective and/or less than enforceable.

If you contend that Cato and Brookings institutes' implied accusations are valid, you're logically impelled to accept USA's federal anti-trust laws failed to achieve their purposes.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, “enable” and “causes” are not synonyms.

The import restrictions enabled automakers to raise prices.
Which you feel violated anti-trust laws.

due to reduced foreign competition, USA vehicle manufacturers conspired among themselves to increase prices of USA produced vehicle;

What if the government knew the restrictions would allow them to raise prices and increase profits......
and let them do it?????

you're logically impelled to accept USA's federal anti-trust laws failed to achieve their purposes.​

Wait one minute......you want me, a small government conservative, to admit the government is imperfect???

Let me sit down......​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are US sugar producers in violation of the law?
Or is it just a coincidence that domestic sugar prices are so much higher than world prices?

How much does the US economy benefit from the higher prices we suffer due to government restrictions?

Toddsterpatriot, the commodity price support policy administered U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The policy supports a narrow list of specifically favored USA commodities as chosen and determined by the U.S. Congress.
It effectively behaves as a legally determined minimum price for those commodities within USA marketplaces.
I'm not a proponent of the policy and do not perceive us deriving any net national benefit from it. But it certainly protects USA producers of those favored agricultural commodities from foreign dumping into USA or global markets.

What law do you believe is being violated? What's your point?

Respectfully, Supposn

The policy supports a narrow list of specifically favored USA commodities as chosen and determined by the U.S. Congress.
It effectively behaves as a legally determined minimum price for those commodities within USA marketplaces.

Yes, it benefits a few domestic producers to the detriment of everyone else.
But at least it raises our GDP.....right?

I'm not a proponent of the policy and do not perceive us deriving any net national benefit from it.

Doesn't locally produced sugar increase our GDP?
Doesn't restricting sugar imports reduce our trade deficit (and thereby increase our GDP)?
How does that not result in a net national benefit?

What law do you believe is being violated?

Aren't they conspiring to raise domestic sugar prices, like the automakers in the early 80s?

it certainly protects USA producers of those favored agricultural commodities from foreign dumping into USA or global markets.

Exactly! Benefit a few, damage everybody else....

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, you contend competition among only USA vehicle producers is insufficient; you insist USA auto prices were higher than otherwise because less foreign vehicle were permitted to enter USA market.

It is you, not I that owns that accusation. I believe if USA vehicle prices were increased, it was due to normal market behavior which continues among competing USA vehicle producers. Unlike you, I do not accuse or imply that USA vehicle producers conspired to violate or evade federal anti-trust laws to induce high USA auto prices.

If less foreign goods enter the USA, remaining USA producers competing against each other are better enabled to increase their prices, but they are still restrained by other USA competitors and subject to federal anti-trust or monopoly laws and regulations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, you contend competition among only USA vehicle producers is insufficient; you insist USA auto prices were higher than otherwise because less foreign vehicle were permitted to enter USA market.

It is you, not I that owns that accusation. I believe if USA vehicle prices were increased, it was due to normal market behavior which continues among competing USA vehicle producers. Unlike you, I do not accuse or imply that USA vehicle producers conspired to violate or evade federal anti-trust laws to induce high USA auto prices.

If less foreign goods enter the USA, remaining USA producers competing against each other are better enabled to increase their prices, but they are still restrained by other USA competitors and subject to federal anti-trust or monopoly laws and regulations.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, you contend competition among only USA vehicle producers is insufficient; you insist USA auto prices were higher than otherwise because less foreign vehicle were permitted to enter USA market.

Do you doubt that foreign competition has made better, less expensive cars available for American consumers.

It is you, not I that owns that accusation.

Yes, I freely own the fact that competition makes things better for our economy, for our consumers.

Unlike you, I do not accuse or imply that USA vehicle producers conspired to violate or evade federal anti-trust laws to induce high USA auto prices.

Anti-competitive actions by government made prices higher.
Higher for cars, higher for sugar.
No anti-trust violations needed.

Put up barriers to foreign oil, domestic oil prices will rise.
Exxon won't have to call up Chevron to manipulate prices if the government adds 15% to the price
of oil entering the US. Or if the government restricts imports to 80% of last years imports.

 

[Supposn]

Are US sugar producers in violation of the law?
Or is it just a coincidence that domestic sugar prices are so much higher than world prices?

How much does the US economy benefit from the higher prices we suffer due to government restrictions?

Toddsterpatriot, ...
I'm not a proponent of the policy and do not perceive us deriving any net national benefit from it. But it certainly protects USA producers of those favored agricultural commodities from foreign dumping into USA or global markets.

What law do you believe is being violated? What's your point?

Respectfully, Supposn

The policy supports a narrow list of specifically favored USA commodities as chosen and determined by the U.S. Congress.
It effectively behaves as a legally determined minimum price for those commodities within USA marketplaces.

Yes, it, [i.e. federal commodity price supports] benefits a few domestic producers to the detriment of everyone else.
But at least it raises our GDP.....right?

I'm not a proponent of the policy and do not perceive us deriving any net national benefit from it.

Doesn't locally produced sugar increase our GDP?
Doesn't restricting sugar imports reduce our trade deficit (and thereby increase our GDP)?
How does that not result in a net national benefit?

What law do you believe is being violated?

Aren't they conspiring to raise domestic sugar prices, like the automakers in the early 80s?

it certainly protects USA producers of those favored agricultural commodities from foreign dumping into USA or global markets.

Exactly! Benefit a few, damage everybody else....

Toddsterpatriot, federal commodity price supports do not net increase our GDP and are net detrimental to our federal budget. Federal commodity price supports are net federal expenditures, when they increase production or otherwise favor one USA product, they reduce production or otherwise disfavor other USA products.
.
You're assuming that USA vehicle producers violated federal law and were not prosecuted?
.
I believe that USA vehicle manufacturers competed against each other and that if vehicle prices increased, they reflect the consequences of a normal competitive market.
To believe otherwise would lead me to conclude that our federal regulations regarding anti-trust and commercial competition are inadequate, requiring more stringent federal regulation and enforcement.
.
The U.S. Congress and President, not sugar producers had an exercised their power to determine our federal policy regarding sugar.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, you're not schizophrenic?
You contend that USA vehicle producers in the early 1980's conspired to unjustifiably increase prices of USA vehicles. But you contend that they did not violate or evaded our federal anti-trust and restriction of trade laws and regulations?
.
How can both contentions be correct? They either acted as competitors or conspirators.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are US sugar producers in violation of the law?
Or is it just a coincidence that domestic sugar prices are so much higher than world prices?

How much does the US economy benefit from the higher prices we suffer due to government restrictions?

Toddsterpatriot, ...
I'm not a proponent of the policy and do not perceive us deriving any net national benefit from it. But it certainly protects USA producers of those favored agricultural commodities from foreign dumping into USA or global markets.

What law do you believe is being violated? What's your point?

Respectfully, Supposn

The policy supports a narrow list of specifically favored USA commodities as chosen and determined by the U.S. Congress.
It effectively behaves as a legally determined minimum price for those commodities within USA marketplaces.

Yes, it, [i.e. federal commodity price supports] benefits a few domestic producers to the detriment of everyone else.
But at least it raises our GDP.....right?

I'm not a proponent of the policy and do not perceive us deriving any net national benefit from it.

Doesn't locally produced sugar increase our GDP?
Doesn't restricting sugar imports reduce our trade deficit (and thereby increase our GDP)?
How does that not result in a net national benefit?

What law do you believe is being violated?

Aren't they conspiring to raise domestic sugar prices, like the automakers in the early 80s?

it certainly protects USA producers of those favored agricultural commodities from foreign dumping into USA or global markets.

Exactly! Benefit a few, damage everybody else....

Toddsterpatriot, federal commodity price supports do not net increase our GDP and are net detrimental to our federal budget. Federal commodity price supports are net federal expenditures, when they increase production or otherwise favor one USA product, they reduce production or otherwise disfavor other USA products.
.
You're assuming that USA vehicle producers violated federal law and were not prosecuted?
.
I believe that USA vehicle manufacturers competed against each other and that if vehicle prices increased, they reflect the consequences of a normal competitive market.
To believe otherwise would lead me to conclude that our federal regulations regarding anti-trust and commercial competition are inadequate, requiring more stringent federal regulation and enforcement.
.
The U.S. Congress and President, not sugar producers had an exercised their power to determine our federal policy regarding sugar.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, federal commodity price supports do not net increase our GDP

What about sugar import quotas?

You're assuming that USA vehicle producers violated federal law

I am? What law?

I believe that USA vehicle manufacturers competed against each other and that if vehicle prices increased, they reflect the consequences of a normal competitive market.

And they had less foreign competition. By federal mandate.

To believe otherwise would lead me to conclude that our federal regulations regarding anti-trust and commercial competition are inadequate, requiring more stringent federal regulation and enforcement.

Of course.....when regulations fail, regulate more........

The U.S. Congress and President, not sugar producers had an exercised their power to determine our federal policy regarding sugar.

It's true, they restrict imports and reduce the trade deficit, which, according to you, increases our GDP.
And yet.....more harm than benefit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, you're not schizophrenic?
You contend that USA vehicle producers in the early 1980's conspired to unjustifiably increase prices of USA vehicles. But you contend that they did not violate or evaded our federal anti-trust and restriction of trade laws and regulations?
.
How can both contentions be correct? They either acted as competitors or conspirators.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

You contend that USA vehicle producers in the early 1980's conspired to unjustifiably increase prices of USA

Why is a conspiracy needed? Do US sugar producers conspire to make sugar prices higher?

But you contend that they did not violate or evaded our federal anti-trust and restriction of trade laws

They reduced production...which laws did that violate?
They raised prices...which laws did that violate?

 

[KissMy]

If you would just work like a dog for only $3 a day, you could compete with Asian workers. Don't worry about shelter, food, water & clothes. Get that stuff from dumpsters until they go empty, then just die so others can have your stuff.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, if individual enterprises increase their prices beyond that of their potential customer's alternatives, those enterprises risk losing sales and their shares of the market.

[Granted that there are few USA vehicle producers; USA automobile producers are an oligopoly, but foreign vehicles accounted for no less than 18% of USA's new auto sales during every one of the 1980's years].
Reduction of foreign competition better enables USA producers to increase their prices, but “enable is not synonymous with “cause”.
You're contending reduction of foreign competition to be the primary “cause” of all USA vehicle producers increasing their prices (beyond usual commercial activity). For that to be the primary cause, there would have been a conspiracy among the USA producers. But U.S. vehicle producers have not been accused of such a conspiracy.
.
You have not demonstrated USA vehicle price increases exceeded that of similar industries that did not experience reduced foreign competition. You have not demonstrated anything particularly unusual regarding those price increases. You have not demonstrated cause and effect.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, if individual enterprises increase their prices beyond that of their potential customer's alternatives, those enterprises risk losing sales and their shares of the market.

[Granted that there are few USA vehicle producers; USA automobile producers are an oligopoly, but foreign vehicles accounted for no less than 18% of USA's new auto sales during every one of the 1980's years].
Reduction of foreign competition better enables USA producers to increase their prices, but “enable is not synonymous with “cause”.
You're contending reduction of foreign competition to be the primary “cause” of all USA vehicle producers increasing their prices (beyond usual commercial activity). For that to be the primary cause, there would have been a conspiracy among the USA producers. But U.S. vehicle producers have not been accused of such a conspiracy.
.
You have not demonstrated USA vehicle price increases exceeded that of similar industries that did not experience reduced foreign competition. You have not demonstrated anything particularly unusual regarding those price increases. You have not demonstrated cause and effect.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, if individual enterprises increase their prices beyond that of their potential customer's alternatives, those enterprises risk losing sales and their shares of the market.

And when government reduces or eliminates those alternatives........what happens?

You're contending reduction of foreign competition to be the primary “cause” of all USA vehicle producers increasing their prices

I'm saying that's an interesting coincidence. Reduced production coinciding with a huge increase in profits.

For that to be the primary cause, there would have been a conspiracy among the USA producers.

Baloney.

If the government puts a $20/ton tariff on imported steel, do the US steelmakers need to conspire to each hike their prices by $20?

You have not demonstrated cause and effect.

If your IC is implemented and results in a $5 increase in the price of imported pink plastic flamingos and domestic manufacturers increase their prices by $4, do I need to demonstrate cause and effect before noticing the damage being done to consumers of pink plastic flamingos?

I'm still curious why you don't think higher domestic production of sugar is a benefit to our economy?

 

[Supposn]

... I'm still curious why you don't think higher domestic production of sugar is a benefit to our economy?

ToddsterPatriot, the concept of Import certificates, (ICs) does not determine the nation's proportional volumes, (i.e. the “mix”) of imported products. IC policy does not tolerate their nation experiencing annual trade deficits of goods and is not applicable to scarce or precious mineral materials. It does not discriminate among industries, products, enterprises, or foreign nations.

Unlike quotas or tariff policies, IC policy is much more market and much less government driven. To answer your specific question, IC policy does not assume that imported sugar or automobiles are more detrimental, and imported cameras or grapes are less detrimental to our nation's GDP. It doesn't assume that any particular imported goods are particularly detrimental to our GDP.

Of course increased production of USA sugar contributes to our GDP, but if it's due to government's favoring the commodity, it's as likely or more likely to be accompanied with reductions of some other USA goods or service products. Cutting off the top of the blanket to sew it back on the bottom of the blanket does not result in a longer blanket.
Annual trade deficits are (in fact rather than only due to opinion), detrimental to their nation's GDP. IC policy does assume that a greater GDP will directly and/or indirectly employ more, and a lesser GDP will employ fewer people than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn