USA goods could be competitively priced

[Toddsterpatriot]

What you referred to was USA deliberately supporting the price of sugar and thus consequentially shifting our markets sales and production of aggregate products.

Yes. And you want an IC plan which would do similar things to our economy.

Import Certificates will increase their nation's GDP more than otherwise.

Except in those areas where it will decrease our GDP. ​

Toddsterpatriot, no, unlike quotas or tariffs, IC policy is much more market rather than government driven and would increase USA's annual GDP more than otherwise.

It cannot prevent any particular type of product from being imported. Although it certainly favors USA produced goods to a limited extent, it does not favor or disfavor any other of the world's geographic or political areas, or enterprise, or industry. It's applicable to the dollar values of all goods excluding the values of mineral materials integral to the goods that are listed as scarce or precious minerals; (crude oil is expected to be on that list).
.
You consider a trade policy not favoring or disfavoring any particular USA state or region as to be an undesirable federal policy?
.
Respectfully, Supposn

unlike quotas or tariffs, IC policy is much more market rather than government driven

If the result is the same, why does it matter that it is "much more market rather than government driven"?

and would increase USA's annual GDP more than otherwise.

It can increase our GDP while also reducing our standard of living.
Do you agree?

It can increase our GDP in some areas while also reducing our GDP in others.

Do you agree?​

 

[Supposn]

Nothing you've just posted goes any further in proving your previous claims.

ToddsterPatriot, within post #156, I inquired if and when the USA should enact an Import Certificate policy of global trade, “how do you believe USA's global and domestic markets would behave?”.
A broad explanation of my expectations from USA's adoption of the Wikipedia described Import Certificate policy followed and closed with by asking what you conceive as a logical alternative to my analysis.

I had expected you to again argue that for example, USA auto producers will not compete with each other and foreign competition is necessary to assure a competitive auto market in the USA. I don't agree with you, but I did expect that of you.
You disappointed me. You're unable to, or unwilling to logically critique the concept of Import Certificates? You cannot point out and explain what you believe is the concept's logical faults?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing you've just posted goes any further in proving your previous claims.

ToddsterPatriot, within post #156, I inquired if and when the USA should enact an Import Certificate policy of global trade, “how do you believe USA's global and domestic markets would behave?”.
A broad explanation of my expectations from USA's adoption of the Wikipedia described Import Certificate policy followed and closed with by asking what you conceive as a logical alternative to my analysis.

I had expected you to again argue that for example, USA auto producers will not compete with each other and foreign competition is necessary to assure a competitive auto market in the USA. I don't agree with you, but I did expect that of you.
You disappointed me. You're unable to, or unwilling to logically critique the concept of Import Certificates? You cannot point out and explain what you believe is the concept's logical faults?

Respectfully, Supposn

within post #156, I inquired if and when the USA should enact an Import Certificate policy of global trade, “how do you believe USA's global and domestic markets would behave?”.

Imports would become more expensive.
Domestic goods that compete with these imports would see an increase in price as well.
US consumers who spent more on these imported and domestic goods would have fewer dollars
to spend on other things. Some producers would see a net benefit. Some would be harmed.
Our standard of living would decline.

I had expected you to again argue that for example, USA auto producers will not compete with each other and foreign competition is necessary to assure a competitive auto market in the USA.

Pretend your IC policy were implemented and also included raw materials like oil.
Pretend the ICs needed for oil imports added a cost of $20 per barrel of imported oil.
Do you think domestic producers would have to "not compete with each other" in order for
domestic oil prices to also rise $20 per barrel?

closed with by asking what you conceive as a logical alternative to my analysis.​

Since I believe the negatives outweigh the positives, my logical alternative is no ICs.​

 

[Supposn]

unlike quotas or tariffs, IC policy is much more market rather than government driven

If the result is the same, why does it matter that it is "much more market rather than government driven"?

ToddsterPatriot, you're stating that the consequences of a politically determined system are always the same as would be a market-determined system? Are you not generally in favor of equitable independent participants within a competitive marketplace?
I'm not in favor of Import Certificates because I believe its best for the world's economy; I'm a proponent of IC policy because I'm unwilling to sacrifice the finances of USA employees for the benefit of nation's that are unwilling or unable to provide better incomes for their own populations.

If our congress determines that we should act altruistically, then the cost should be borne by our entire federal budget rather than being primarily borne by USA's employees and their dependents.
After WW2, the Marshall Plan was paid through our federal budget. It was both to our political best interests and a nation's charity to others. (But I believe we were more charitable to Europeans rather than to Asians).

and would increase USA's annual GDP more than otherwise.

It can increase our GDP while also reducing our standard of living.

Do you agree?

ToddsterPatriot, USA cannot sustain the practice of purchasing more costly USA goods, and/or alternative USA goods and service products, unless we continue to at very least sustain (and we would actually be driven to increase) our production volumes; that's net increasing our GDP.

You're contending a nation can sustain increasing their GDP while it would also sustain reductions of their living standards? Other than sacrifices to retain national hot or cold war-time survival, are you aware of any nation ever attempting to do that? ...

Why would they do so?​

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

unlike quotas or tariffs, IC policy is much more market rather than government driven

If the result is the same, why does it matter that it is "much more market rather than government driven"?

ToddsterPatriot, you're stating that the consequences of a politically determined system are always the same as would be a market-determined system? Are you not generally in favor of equitable independent participants within a competitive marketplace?
I'm not in favor of Import Certificates because I believe its best for the world's economy; I'm a proponent of IC policy because I'm unwilling to sacrifice the finances of USA employees for the benefit of nation's that are unwilling or unable to provide better incomes for their own populations.

If our congress determines that we should act altruistically, then the cost should be borne by our entire federal budget rather than being primarily borne by USA's employees and their dependents.
After WW2, the Marshall Plan was paid through our federal budget. It was both to our political best interests and a nation's charity to others. (But I believe we were more charitable to Europeans rather than to Asians).

and would increase USA's annual GDP more than otherwise.

It can increase our GDP while also reducing our standard of living.

Do you agree?

ToddsterPatriot, USA cannot sustain the practice of purchasing more costly USA goods, and/or alternative USA goods and service products, unless we continue to at very least sustain (and we would actually be driven to increase) our production volumes; that's net increasing our GDP.

You're contending a nation can sustain increasing their GDP while it would also sustain reductions of their living standards? Other than sacrifices to retain national hot or cold war-time survival, are you aware of any nation ever attempting to do that? ...

Why would they do so?​

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, you're stating that the consequences of a politically determined system are always the same as would be a market-determined system?

Always? No.

Are you not generally in favor of equitable independent participants within a competitive marketplace?

What are "equitable independent participants"?

You're contending a nation can sustain increasing their GDP while it would also sustain reductions of their living standards?

Huh? Can you restate that more clearly?

 

[Supposn]

... Pretend your IC policy were implemented and also included raw materials like oil.
Pretend the ICs needed for oil imports added a cost of $20 per barrel of imported oil.
Do you think domestic producers would have to "not compete with each other" in order for
domestic oil prices to also rise $20 per barrel?...

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).
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ToddsterPatriot, a tanker of imported crude petroleum would have an adjusted value of zero; The assessed value of refined petroleum product would be adjusted to exclude the approximate value of crude petroleum integral to the product.

Let's consider that the global market price of USA import certificates Is currently $XX per $1,000 of ICs' face values; (internet brokerage fees for ICs are comparatively insignificant).

USA assessment fees paid by exporters of USA goods (approximately defraying all direct federal net costs due to the IC policy) are $YY per $1,000 of assessed values.

The indirect subsidy of USA exported products to foreign purchasers would approximately be (X.X – Y.Y)%.

The increase of foreign goods passed on to USA purchasers would approximately be (100. + x.x)%.

Now, since multiple USA and foreign products are competing within USA's domestic and possibly also global markets, why would a producer of USA products wish to squander their share of the markets by increasing their prices more than otherwise?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[deanrd]

Or we could reduce taxes and regulations to make our domestic production more competitive.

Don't be stupid. Manufacturing has doubled in the last couple of decades. Because 87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. Nothing is cheaper than automation.

Stop listening to Republicans. They will fuk this country over for a dime. Only the most ignorant of tards listens to their BS. You sit in front of the damn Internet, or as right wingers call it, The Interweb. READ! LOOK STUFF UP! FIND OUT THE TRUTH!

After you do that, come back and we can have a discussion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Pretend your IC policy were implemented and also included raw materials like oil.
Pretend the ICs needed for oil imports added a cost of $20 per barrel of imported oil.
Do you think domestic producers would have to "not compete with each other" in order for
domestic oil prices to also rise $20 per barrel?...

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).
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ToddsterPatriot, a tanker of imported crude petroleum would have an adjusted value of zero; The assessed value of refined petroleum product would be adjusted to exclude the approximate value of crude petroleum integral to the product.

Let's consider that the global market price of USA import certificates Is currently $XX per $1,000 of ICs' face values; (internet brokerage fees for ICs are comparatively insignificant).

USA assessment fees paid by exporters of USA goods (approximately defraying all direct federal net costs due to the IC policy) are $YY per $1,000 of assessed values.

The indirect subsidy of USA exported products to foreign purchasers would approximately be (X.X – Y.Y)%.

The increase of foreign goods passed on to USA purchasers would approximately be (100. + x.x)%.

Now, since multiple USA and foreign products are competing within USA's domestic and possibly also global markets, why would a producer of USA products wish to squander their share of the markets by increasing their prices more than otherwise?

Respectfully, Supposn

Pretend the ICs needed for oil imports added a cost of $20 per barrel of imported oil.
Do you think domestic producers would have to "not compete with each other" in order for
domestic oil prices to also rise $20 per barrel?...

Now, since multiple USA and foreign products are competing within USA's domestic and possibly also global markets, why would a producer of USA products wish to squander their share of the markets by increasing their prices more than otherwise?

Would oil producers be squandering their market share if they allowed their oil to be sold for $20 more?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or we could reduce taxes and regulations to make our domestic production more competitive.

Don't be stupid. Manufacturing has doubled in the last couple of decades. Because 87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. Nothing is cheaper than automation.

Stop listening to Republicans. They will fuk this country over for a dime. Only the most ignorant of tards listens to their BS. You sit in front of the damn Internet, or as right wingers call it, The Interweb. READ! LOOK STUFF UP! FIND OUT THE TRUTH!

After you do that, come back and we can have a discussion.

Manufacturing has doubled in the last couple of decades.

That's excellent news!!

So none of our manufacturing was offshored?

None left to avoid high taxes and moronic regulations?

 

[Supposn]

You're contending a nation can sustain increasing their GDP while it would also sustain reductions of their living standards?

Huh? Can you restate that more clearly?

ToddsterPatriot, you're correct; the question and my response should be reconsidered.
Governments can increase their nation's GDP in manners that you or I may, or may not consider to improve their population's living standards; (e.g. the Egyptians built pyramids).
Military spending for defense or war accounted for much of our own spending and greatly contributed to the elimination of the USSR, which is now a federation of fewer national governments. That's something that came very much to my mind when seeing videos of money pallets being loaded on aircraft for delivery to U.S. Occupied Iraq.

I should agree nations' due to necessity for national survival, or due to their government's great indifference for their population's welfare, could increase their GDP while failing to improve the nation's living standards.

I still contend that democratic republic's voters do not obtain or need not continue to suffer poorer government than they deserve. But that's not a particularly optimistic opinion.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Indeependent]

Or we could reduce taxes and regulations to make our domestic production more competitive.

Don't be stupid. Manufacturing has doubled in the last couple of decades. Because 87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. Nothing is cheaper than automation.

Stop listening to Republicans. They will fuk this country over for a dime. Only the most ignorant of tards listens to their BS. You sit in front of the damn Internet, or as right wingers call it, The Interweb. READ! LOOK STUFF UP! FIND OUT THE TRUTH!

After you do that, come back and we can have a discussion.

Of course you're omitting the fact that bagging a burger at McDonalds is added to our manufacturing numbers.

 

[Supposn]

Would oil producers be squandering their market share if they allowed their oil to be sold for $20 more?

Regarding your question within post #168, “Would oil producers be squandering their market share if they allowed their oil to be sold for $20 more?”, refer to post #166.

Why do you choose a product that's explicitly not subject to the Import Certificates? Please redraft your question so we both can agree upon the product we're discussing.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would oil producers be squandering their market share if they allowed their oil to be sold for $20 more?

Regarding your question within post #168, “Would oil producers be squandering their market share if they allowed their oil to be sold for $20 more?”, refer to post #166.

Why do you choose a product that's explicitly not subject to the Import Certificates? Please redraft your question so we both can agree upon the product we're discussing.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why do you choose a product that's explicitly not subject to the Import Certificates?

Because it's a simpler example than widgets.

Please redraft your question so we both can agree upon the product we're discussing.

When I mentioned automakers raising their prices in reaction to government restrictions of imports,
you insisted that was a bad example.

Would imports of steel be included under an IC regime?

 

[Supposn]

When I mentioned automakers raising their prices in reaction to government restrictions of imports, you insisted that was a bad example.
.
Would imports of steel be included under an IC regime?

I don't recall stating it's a bad example, but I suppose I would have mentioned there are very few auto producers in the USA and thus they're more of an oligopoly (which I would suppose may be more amiable to your arguments).
.
I suppose to the extent that steel is produced in the USA, it requires significant volumes of production to reduce its per volume costs and there aren't too many steel-producing sites in the USA. But I'm speculating, I do not actually know.
.
Post #166 is applicable among the producers of goods in the USA that are actively competing with each other. This does not exclude USA subsidiaries of foreign enterprises that produce USA products. If USA's automobiles or steel producers are actively competitive participants in their industries, post #168 describes their behaviors in USA automobile or steel producing industries.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I mentioned automakers raising their prices in reaction to government restrictions of imports, you insisted that was a bad example.
.
Would imports of steel be included under an IC regime?

I don't recall stating it's a bad example, but I suppose I would have mentioned there are very few auto producers in the USA and thus they're more of an oligopoly (which I would suppose may be more amiable to your arguments).
.
I suppose to the extent that steel is produced in the USA, it requires significant volumes of production to reduce its per volume costs and there aren't too many steel-producing sites in the USA. But I'm speculating, I do not actually know.
.
Post #166 is applicable among the producers of goods in the USA that are actively competing with each other. This does not exclude USA subsidiaries of foreign enterprises that produce USA products. If USA's automobiles or steel producers are actively competitive participants in their industries, post #168 describes their behaviors in USA automobile or steel producing industries.

Respectfully, Supposn

Post #166 is applicable among the producers of goods in the USA that are actively competing with each other.

Yes, competing with each other, competing with the world.
If you think restricting foreign competition or raising the price of foreign goods
won't lead to higher domestic prices as well, you're being naïve.

It happens with sugar today, it happened with steel after Bush's tariffs, it happened with automobiles
when Reagan limited Japanese imports, it would happen with oil prices if oil fell under an IC scheme and
it would happen with a wide range of goods under an IC scheme as well.

 

[Supposn]

Post #166 is applicable among the producers of goods in the USA that are actively competing with each other.

Yes, competing with each other, competing with the world.
If you think restricting foreign competition or raising the price of foreign goods
won't lead to higher domestic prices as well, you're being naïve.

It happens with sugar today, it happened with steel after Bush's tariffs, it happened with automobiles
when Reagan limited Japanese imports, it would happen with oil prices if oil fell under an IC scheme and
it would happen with a wide range of goods under an IC scheme as well.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm among those opposed to our USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, and among proponents of competitive marketplaces.
I agree to the extent that a trade policy places imported goods at some disadvantage, the nation's marketplaces are to some extent also less competitive.
But you contend further, that to the extent that imported goods are at some disadvantage, competing domestic producers would not, (if they could) fully compete on prices. I find your contention to be illogical.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Post #166 is applicable among the producers of goods in the USA that are actively competing with each other.

Yes, competing with each other, competing with the world.
If you think restricting foreign competition or raising the price of foreign goods
won't lead to higher domestic prices as well, you're being naïve.

It happens with sugar today, it happened with steel after Bush's tariffs, it happened with automobiles
when Reagan limited Japanese imports, it would happen with oil prices if oil fell under an IC scheme and
it would happen with a wide range of goods under an IC scheme as well.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm among those opposed to our USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, and among proponents of competitive marketplaces.
I agree to the extent that a trade policy places imported goods at some disadvantage, the nation's marketplaces are to some extent also less competitive.
But you contend further, that to the extent that imported goods are at some disadvantage, competing domestic producers would not, (if they could) fully compete on prices. I find your contention to be illogical.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

Reminding us all that the Trump administration doesn't really grasp the point of trade they've announced that they're going to make all Americans that little bit poorer by slapping import tariffs of 16.5 to 81% on imports from China of aluminium foil. There's no great national security issue here, just an insistence that China offers this stuff too damn cheap and Americans darn well ought to be paying more.


Trump Admin Makes Americans Poorer - 16% to 81 % Tariffs On Chinese Aluminum Foil

Does this tariff on foil increase US GDP?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stop listening to Republicans. They will fuk this country over for a dime. Only the most ignorant of tards listens to their BS. You sit in front of the damn Internet, or as right wingers call it, The Interweb. READ! LOOK STUFF UP! FIND OUT THE TRUTH!

After you do that, come back and we can have a discussion.

if you have something against capitalist economic thinking please tell us what it is or admit as a typical liberal you cant.

 

[Supposn]

Reminding us all that the Trump administration doesn't really grasp the point of trade they've announced that they're going to make all Americans that little bit poorer by slapping import tariffs of 16.5 to 81% on imports from China of aluminium foil. There's no great national security issue here, just an insistence that China offers this stuff too damn cheap and Americans darn well ought to be paying more.

Trump Admin Makes Americans Poorer - 16% to 81 % Tariffs On Chinese Aluminum Foil

Does this tariff on foil increase US GDP?

ToddsterPatriot, increasing the GDP means increasing the nation's production of goods and services. Regardless of tariffs, there is or there isn't a net increase of gross domestic production.
.
If USA continues to consume the same volumes of Chinese aluminum, there'd be no increase. Regardless of USA's volumes of aluminum production, if our aggregate production of goods and services did not increase, or if it rather decreased, our GDP would not increase or it would rather decrease.
.
I'm not a proponent of tariffs or other methods for government choosing winners and losers; I'm a proponent of the substantially market-driven policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a proponent of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates”.

Respectfully, Supposn

yes, and that policy would protect and cripple American industry and and impoverish American consumers with tariff taxes!!