1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

USA’s chronic trade deficits

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by Supposn, Mar 19, 2016.

  1. Poseidon Atlantis

    Poseidon Atlantis Mayor

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    181
    I was looking at an article which said that the US Civil War was between the manner in which the West would be colonised . One side wanted a slave owning "democracy" and the other wanted something else .
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    17,047
    Likes Received:
    2,264
    America pays for its trade deficits with printed money... specifically, US Treasuries. Now, if we would only pay for our debt with more printed money, it all would work out... in our favor.
     
  3. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    17,047
    Likes Received:
    2,264
    The Civil War was over the government not being fair to all the states, for whatever reasons and issues of the day. So, for this issue, some states wanted it one way and other states wanted it another way, the war broke out because the government kept favoring the same states (in the north) regardless of the issue or what was best for everyone. So it was actually the failure of the republic that led to the South attempting to chuck it. Lincoln didn't build a "more perfect union" he forced the same old failed republic down the South's throat.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Poseidon Atlantis

    Poseidon Atlantis Mayor

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    181
    Which enabled the conquest of the West , the north and south couldn't agree on much else other than that it should be done .
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    61,837
    Likes Received:
    3,215
    If you're in debt, yeah. If you're on a fixed income, no. If you're a wage-earner, you're rolling the dice.

    Ultimately, money and debt are fictitious (specie as much as fiat money). Plenty and want, labor and exploitation, those are real. Money is just a social means of simplification by which the enjoyment of plenty in the midst of want and the exploitation of labor are given regular and systematic expression. But no one can eat money, money can't make a single train move without a worker to push the button (or whatever they do), and the rules of having and having not can always be rewritten by force.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    61,837
    Likes Received:
    3,215
    The big contest was between the slaveowning planters of the South, with their typical economic and political interests, and the industrialists of the North, with their typical economic and political interests. Since Jefferson's time up to Lincoln's election the government had been dominated by the South, which was pushing back against the North on such issues as the Missouri Compromise (rejected by the South since it limited the spread of slavery), the Kansas debate (the South wanted to force slavery on Kansas against the will of Kansas's majority), the fugitive slave law, the ability of territories to outlaw slavery (denied by a Southern-dominated Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, sparking fears that a new court decision would go on to deny the same ability to states), protective tariffs (opposed by most of the South for economic reasons although they were vital to northern manufacturers), and free speech (the South demanded that Northern proponents of abolition be silenced).

    Lincoln was elected when farmers and other middle-class northern voters united with the industrialists to resist this offensive on the part of the south. As president, he achieved a fundamental economic, political, and social transformation of the United States by leading the fight to abolish slavery and setting the stage for the transformation of the southern economy into a capitalist one, and shifting the balance of political power from the south to the northeast.
     
  7. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Governor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    More Proof That Plutocratic Parasites Are Behind Anti-Racism

    Sweatshops and wage slavery for the White working class, who were more productive than the lazy and incompetent Africans. Look at how the pioneers were sent out unprotected by the underfunded military and slaughtered by the merciless Indian savages. Americans never broke a treaty with the Indians, because we, the people, never made any. They were all imposed on us by the Whiteys Hating Whitey government.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  8. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Governor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    Slavery Saved Blacks From Savagery

    All we need to know about Lincoln is that he betrayed his class by marrying a rich widow and adopting her decadent plutocratic ideology. Postmodern history is written for spoiled snobs, so why give it any credibility?

    The South would have pulled back from the West if allowed to conquer the Caribbean. Second, it could have been allowed to balance the House of Representatives by counting slaves as 100%, just like any other dependents.

    The Adams family, more than any other family, was responsible for the Civil War. Yet they begged one of their sons not to be such a fool as to risk his life in it. Ideology is a spitball fight in a prep school.
     
  9. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    61,837
    Likes Received:
    3,215
    It's not that whites were more productive, it's that capitalism was and is more productive than slavery.

    The military played a major role in opening the West by defeating, killing, and massacring Indians.

    Indians are people and Americans.

    The U.S. government has been white supremacist since its inception and has made concessions to other races only as a result of multi-racial popular struggles.
     
  10. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    61,837
    Likes Received:
    3,215
    Lincoln's political role doesn't count for anything?

    The spread of the slave system and its representatives' political power was not only inhuman, but also a threat to the civil liberties we enjoy as a result of the American Revolution. To prevent the growth of slave rebellion, popular abolition sentiment, and noncooperation with increasingly strict fugitive slave laws (written so broadly that free Blacks were often swept up in dragnets and sold into slavery), the plantation owners' representatives had to muzzle the newspapers, censor the mails, make a mockery of search and seizure protections, and put a gag on free speech.
     
  11. Poseidon Atlantis

    Poseidon Atlantis Mayor

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    181
    Bit like Zionism in Palestine when you think about it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Sage of Main Street, USA’s adoption of the unilateral substantially market driven policy for global trade described in Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article would be in our best net economic and social interests regardless of any entities’ reactions.

    Behavior of Import Certificates global markets’ price rate:

    Import Certificates competitive global markets’ price rate drives the additional costs to USA purchasers of imported goods and the extent of indirect subsidy for USA’s exported goods.
    The entire direct net costs are passed onto USA purchasers of foreign goods.

    The expected minimum certificates global markets’ price rate is the federal rate paid by exporters of USA goods that requested the values of shipment be assessed. Federal fees defray federal direct current costs due to this policy.

    USA consumers balking at USA imports’ increased prices would determine the maximum rate of certificates’ global prices.
    If the certificates’ global price rates should be insufficient, exporters of USA goods would not trouble to deal with them and fewer certificates will be issued.

    [But additionally the law could be drafted as to provide for congressional executive agreements to interrupt the enactment of this trade policy because there are no longer any reasonable expectations of annual USA trade deficits. The Import Certificate laws and regulations could still remain in place].

    If issued certificates do not satisfy USA consumers’ willingness and ability to pay more for foreign goods, the shortfall would increase the global certificate markets' rates prices and the indirect subsidy of USA exports to foreign purchasers.

    Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  13. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Governor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    High and Mighty Lowlife

    I really don't understand why Import Certificates are better than tariffs, or even why ICers have a problem with tariffs. Considering the source of all these sheltered and conceited new ideas, I suspect that know-it-all blowhards are trying to pull a fast one.
     
  14. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Sage of Main Street, you write that you do no perceive an advantage to be gained from a subsidizing USA exports at no cost to ourselves?

    Among Import Certificates advantages of Import certificates is that even if the policy adds only a single penny to the prices of import items sold to USA purchasers, USA’s annual trade deficits of goods would be entirely, or almost entirely eliminated.

    Exporters of USA goods request, (they are not required) to pay the federal fees in order to acquire the valuable transferable certificates (which are only issued if the fees are paid). Those fees by law are set and annually monitored to no more than defray federal direct expenses due to this policy. The fees are not a source of net government revenue.

    If USA purchasers are willing to pay more than that, the global certificate markets’ price rates increase; that in turn enables USA exporters to sell USA goods that were previously too expensive for global markets. Exporters of USA good could then accept some loss on their USA goods transactions that will be “covered’ by their profits derived from reselling their transferable certificates. Exporters of USA goods then increase their sales volumes at no net reduction of their profits.

    If USA purchasers are unwilling to pay more than that, the global certificate markets’ price rates cannot be sustained much higher that the federal fees paid by exporters of USA goods. In that case there will be no subsidy of USA exports. This trade policy is substantially market driven.

    You don’t perceive any of this as advantages?

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  15. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Governor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    Would this be an example? Say that Ford's cost in making a car is 15K and they sell it for 20K. But they want to sell it to a country that can only afford $10K. So they get an IC for 10K, which they sell to Walmart, which needs it to import products that cost them 10K less than American-made products.
     
  16. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sage of Main Street, all federal assessments of goods’ values are of their values within USA domestic markets or ports, expressed in U.S. dollars. The only reason that production costs should be considered would be in cases of goods custom made for a specific purchaser and would be of much lesser value to most other potential customers for such goods.

    Ford will not charge lesser prices to exporters while their USA dealers would continue to pay higher prices. The consequences of doing so would be for the “exporters” to somehow divert the cars to USA’s domestic markets and have an unjustified advantage over Ford’s domestic dealers.

    [Let us suppose this year the federal fee rate charged to exporters who are ENTITLED TO REQUEST to pay the U.S. federal fee in order to acquire transferable Import Certificates is 3.63%. (Last year those fees were 3.05% but due to some inflation of the U.S. dollar and increased direct federal expenses due to increases of federal direct net expenditures due to this trade policy.]

    The federal assessment of the exporter’s shipment of Fords was $1,500,000. The exporter paid (0.0363)($1.5 million) = $54,450 to the federal government. (this is not net federal revenue. It only defrayed government’s direct expenses due to the Import Certificate policy.

    When the shipment of Fords has departed from the USA, the exporter receives a transferable Import Certificate with a face value of $1.5 million.

    Now let us suppose the global market value of Import Certificates is 11.00% after we deduct a small brokerage rate for selling the certificate over the internet. The exporter has just realized a profit due to certificate transactions
    of (0.11 – 0.0363)($1.5 million) = $110,550.

    Thus the exporter has reduced his net costs by 7.37%. He’d like to pocket that money but between the competitive market pressures due to competing exporters of Fords and foreign buyers getting price quotes from all competing exporters or actually acting as exporters of Fords from the USA, this policy behaves as a subsidy of its nation’s exported goods.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  17. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Governor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    You're depriving our government of 97.637% of its potential revenue from tariffs. Taxpayers will have to make up for the shortfall.
     
  18. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sage of Main Street, I agree that increased federal revenue is desirable, but our economy would better profit from increased GDP and numbers of jobs. The Import Certificate policy additionally serves as an effective price subsidy for USA exported goods.

    Unless tariffs are drastically high, they cannot be reasonably expected to entirely or almost entirely eliminate USA’s global trade deficits of goods. Such extremely great tariff rates reflected by prices paid by USA purchasers of imported goods would almost entirely eliminate all imports into the USA.
    I’m not among those believing that such drastically high tariffs are desirable. I suspect they very possibly may be to our net economic detriment. Any change that does not provide a reasonably probable net benefit should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.


    Within an Import Certificate policy, (regardless of certificate’s global markets’ price rate or any other entities’ reactions), USA’s annual trade deficits of goods would CERTAINLY be entirely or almost entirely eliminated while also being of net benefit to our nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs.
    This remains true even if the additional price increases to USA purchasers of imported goods would only be one penny per item.

    Mutual agreements come about by individuals perceiving what they believe to be their own advantages. A nation’s global trade itself is not detrimental to them but (unless a nation enjoys full-employment), trade deficits are always detrimental to their nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs.


    Respectfully, Supposn
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2016
  19. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    I did not vote for Donald Trump in 20016 and I’m very much unlikely to do so in 20020; BUT if during his administration, he signs and enacts an “Import Certificate” policy as described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” or he strived to have such a bill passed and runs on a platform to sign such a bill, it’s extremely likely I’d vote for President Donald Trump in 2020.


    That bill would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods, and more than otherwise increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage. Rather than being a net source of tax revenue, the policy behaves as an indirect but effective subsidy of prices to foreign purchasers of USA exported goods.

    All the trade policy’s net direct costs are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods. The substantially market (rather than government) driven trade policy could not halt the importation of any item for which there’s an effective demand among USA consumers of goods.


    Respectfully, Supposn
     

Share This Page