Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP

Lafayette said:

In fact, I am very suspicious of any sort of government intervention.

BUT, I live in France where certain subventions/interventions are absolutely prime-responsibilities of a national government. These I have witnessed with my own eyes. They are, as I have explained many a time, a National Health Service that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg (humour intended!), and Free Tertiary Education.

The first of which the Replicants are fighting tooth-'n-nail to prevent at all costs - a little "gift" to the 10Percenters (of total National Income) at the AMA; and the second the benefit of which is so effing obvious it is beyond-belief that it has not been implemented fully across the nation in state universities as it has for Primary/Secondary schooling ...

Click to expand...

Lafayette, many nations do not consider healthcare, education and many other social issues as only individuals’ problems. Expenditures related to those issues are spread among all of their nations’ individuals and enterprises. Thus even when considering the effect of their government’s expenditures for some social issues upon their nations’ tax rates, the net effect of those government programs’ upon their nations’ individuals and enterprises net expenditures are reduced more than otherwise.
Additionally, similar to improving public infrastructures contribute to their nation’s economies, improvements of public health, education, custodial care of dependents while those supporting them are gainfully employed also contribute to their nation’s general economy and are supportive of their producing enterprises, (i.e. supportive of their GDPs).
[James972 of course refutes this entire paragraph, but he’s unable to explain how and why].)

Even when considering these social programs effects upon enterprises’ taxes, enterprises net benefits due to some government social programs are not factored into the prices of those enterprises’ products. Many, if not most modern industrial nations utilize a “value added tax” among their major tax revenue sources.
(I’m a proponent of incrementally reducing taxes upon the lowest brackets of net income taxes to the greatest extent feasible WHILE simultaneously increasing government social service programs that would be of net economic benefit and compensate the working poor and their dependents for their increased payments of sales taxes).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////

With regard to foreign trade:
I suppose all nations waive identifiable taxes within their nations’ exported products in order to reduce the prices of their exports. USA producers of exported products cannot benefit from the waiving of any federal taxes imbedded within their products because those taxes cannot be identified. But foreign nations collect taxes due to sales transaction of goods.
USA exports prices to foreign purchasers include their full share of both USA and foreign taxes but foreign imports sold to USA purchasers do not include foreign sales taxes. This is of some disadvantage to USA goods competing with foreign goods within USA’s domestic markets. Additionally because USA cannot identify federal taxes imbedded within USA exports, we cannot provide USA exporters with similar advantages that foreign nations normally provide to exporters of their nations’ goods.

The net benefits of foreign nation’s social programs to their produces of goods, reduces those foreign goods prices. To the extent that USA has much less of such economically beneficial programs, USA goods competing against foreign goods anywhere, (including within the USA) are at a disadvantage.

Respectfully, Supposn

Lafayette said:

In fact, I am very suspicious of any sort of government intervention.

BUT, I live in France where certain subventions/interventions are absolutely prime-responsibilities of a national government. These I have witnessed with my own eyes. They are, as I have explained many a time, a National Health Service that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg (humour intended!), and Free Tertiary Education.

The first of which the Replicants are fighting tooth-'n-nail to prevent at all costs - a little "gift" to the 10Percenters (of total National Income) at the AMA; and the second the benefit of which is so effing obvious it is beyond-belief that it has not been implemented fully across the nation in state universities as it has for Primary/Secondary schooling ...

Click to expand...

Lafayette, I suspect that many “caps” upon government programs’ beneficiaries’ incomes are counter-productive. They overly complicate regulations and too often have less than satisfactory consequences. It’s often apparent that the expected budget saving due to the qualifying caps often do not justify even the cost of policing and the attempt to enforce such regulations but they rather undermine public trust in their government.

When the government expenditure for a government program is not actually relative to the beneficiaries’ incomes, the tax revenues derived from wealthier taxpayers too often extremely far exceed the government’s costs for providing them the benefit.

The aggregate net budget saving that could be gained by enforcing an income cap upon wealthier beneficiaries doesn’t justify the cap.
The aggregate net budget savings that could be gained due to the cap is somewhat mitigated by the economic gains derived from additionally providing the programs’ benefits to the less than deserving.

Each cap or proposed cap regulation, (as should all existing or proposed laws and regulations) be judged upon their own merits.
I am not overly concerned about wealthier persons being among all persons benefiting from government programs supporting health, education, custodial care for dependents, and many other social programs of net economic benefit to the nation.

If a wealthy parent wants to send their child to daycare on the government’s expense in order to play golf and sleep in the afternoon, maybe the child and society benefits because a child less wanted has not been so tightly tied to the parent.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

many nations do not consider healthcare, education and many other social issues as only individuals’ problems. Expenditures related to those issues are spread among all of their nations’ individuals and enterprises. Thus even when considering the effect of their government’s expenditures for some social issues upon their nations’ tax rates, the net effect of those government programs’ upon their nations’ individuals and enterprises net expenditures are reduced more than otherwise.

Click to expand...

I happen to live in one - a collection of more than 600 million people called the European Union, that proposes itself as a "Social Democracy".

Two of the pillars of a Social Democracy are very basic:
*National Health Systems - both physical and psychological
*Free Primary, Secondary, Tertiary education.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Perhaps you've not given sufficient thought to the "meaning" or "purpose" of a Social Democracy - because you've never lived in one?

Or is the problem one more basic. That is, a sense of Social Justice?

All nations evolve, some faster than others. Some with more fairness than others, because of the manner in which they impose internal rules. (That eternal struggle between defining what is best for the individual and what is best for the whole. Which is the central issue, btw, we are debating in this forum.)

Should we be afraid to mimic those who seem to have found a rule or attribute that enhances their well-being that we too could also apply?

Methinks not ...

I'm Supposn said:

I believe that superior national economies provide their populations with sustainable superior living standards.

Click to expand...

Me too.

What we are debating is the means for doing so, and how both the results and consequences are measured. And we happen to disagree in this regard.

Don't take it personally.

That's all ...

I'm Supposn said:

They overly complicate regulations and too often have less than satisfactory consequences.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, and the burden of proof is upon you.

As regards the two I mentioned, which I feel are central to any True Democracy - a National Health System and Free Tertiary Education - I happen to live in Country (call it a "state" if you like) that is part of a larger union of about 600 million people.

Who have accepted these two aspects of governance as "fundamental" and "non-negotiable" since the very beginning. That is, since the end of WW2, when the US left Europe content with the fact that it had defeated Nazism and had only to contend with yet another "ism" contrary to what it considered its fundamental belief of democracy (and which no longer exists).

In the 1950s, as Europe reconstructed itself, there was a parting of ways with the US. Europe was putting together a Socioeconomic Democracy of a somewhat different nature; that is, based upon other "fundamental beliefs" rather different from the US though not incompatible. (And, so far, so good for the EU.)

Whilst all the rest is "up for debate" ...

Lafayette, my “populist views” and your views of “social justice”, seem to be similar, (if not the same) view.
You and I seem to disagree regarding the advisability and advantages to USA if we would adopt an Import Certificate policy for our global trade.

I recognize USA’s net economic and social gains if we (to the greatest extent feasible) would replace our lowest bracket federal taxes upon net incomes with a general “value added” (sales) tax and enact net economically beneficial social programs to compensate our working poor and their dependents for the additional net federal taxes they would pay.
If we do not additionally also modify our practices of global trade, USA products will within our own domestic and other markets; (i.e. within all the world’s markets), remain at significant disadvantage to competing products from lower median wage nations.

I’m a proponent of USA adopting the transferable Import Certificate policy for our global trade; you do not perceive its advantage to the USA. Your lack a perception is possibly due to your sympathy for nations other than the USA and/or your strong conception of “social justice” and/or your greater connection to nations other than the USA?

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Lafayette, my “populist views” and your views of “social justice”, seem to be similar, (if not the same) view.
You and I seem to disagree regarding the advisability and advantages to USA if we would adopt an Import Certificate policy for our global trade.

I recognize USA’s net economic and social gains if we (to the greatest extent feasible) would replace our lowest bracket federal taxes upon net incomes with a general “value added” (sales) tax and enact net economically beneficial social programs to compensate our working poor and their dependents for the additional net federal taxes they would pay.
If we do not additionally also modify our practices of global trade, USA products will within our own domestic and other markets; (i.e. within all the world’s markets), remain at significant disadvantage to competing products from lower median wage nations.

I’m a proponent of USA adopting the transferable Import Certificate policy for our global trade; you do not perceive its advantage to the USA. Your lack a perception is possibly due to your sympathy for nations other than the USA and/or your strong conception of “social justice” and/or your greater connection to nations other than the USA?

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

You are repeating yourself:

I'm Supposn said:

I’m among the proponents of the proposed unilateral Import Certificate trade policy which if adopted by the USA would significantly reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods and thus increase USA's annual GDPs.

Click to expand...

I'm Supposn said:

The proposed unilateral policy of transferable Import Certificates for our global trade of goods is not absolutely “pure” free trade but it is primarily market rather than government driven and it is absolutely competitive free enterprise when transactions are conducted by independent and competing entrepreneurs.

Click to expand...

I'm Supposn said:

Google the words “ wikipedia import certificates ”

Click to expand...

I'm Supposn said:

The Import Certificate proposal as described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” does not favor or discriminate among foreign nations or among any industries within any nations

Click to expand...

I'm Supposn said:

Originally Posted by Supposn:
It, (i.e. the proposed Import certificate policy for USA’s global trade) does not tolerate annual USA trade deficits of goods.

Click to expand...

I'm Supposn said:

Of course our economy would have been best served if we had adopted the Import Certificate, (IC) policy many years ago, but we didn’t do that; it will be well served if we adopt the IC policy now, but we won’t do that; but it will be improved if and when we do adopt the IC policy.

Click to expand...

I'm Supposn said:

Lafayette, I’m a proponent for USA adopting the unilateral global trade policy as described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.

Click to expand...

Just.... wow.

I'm Supposn said:

remain at significant disadvantage to competing products

Click to expand...

Americans are the richest in the world so we're hardly at a disadvantage and that is after all the impoverishing liberal programs to harm business and drive it out of America: liberal taxes, unions, and deficits.

Originally Posted by Supposn:
remain at significant disadvantage to competing products.

James972 said:

Americans are the richest in the world so we're hardly at a disadvantage and that is after all the impoverishing liberal programs to harm business and drive it out of America: liberal taxes, unions, and deficits.

Click to expand...

James972, your post’s contending that products of low-wage nations do not generally benefit from some price advantages within USA and foreign markets? I doubt if you now do or ever did actually believe such nonsense.

I do not advocate a USA global trade policy of absolutely “pure” free trade. I’m a proponent of USA adopting a unilateral Import Certificate policy as described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. That policy’s much more market rather than government driven.

Although USA’s total volumes of aggregate imports cannot exceed our exports, the product “mixes” of those volumes are entirely determined by the markets. Where our USA imports are being shipped from or where USA exports are being shipped to, or when imports or exports are shipped are all entirely market determinations.

The federal assessment rates charged to exporters’ of USA goods are determined by the federal government are set and annually updated to only defray federal direct administrative and assessment expenditures due to the policy.

Exporters are entitled to request their goods to be assessed and pay the assessment fees in order to acquire transferable Import Certificates, (they are not required to do so). The fees they pay are dependent upon the assessed values of their goods and the fee rate. The “face value” of the certificates is the adjusted assessed value of the export goods that were the basis of the certificate’s issuance.

The federal rate of import Certificates affects, (but does not determine) import certificate price rates within the free global market. The price additions to USA purchasers of imported goods and the reduction of prices to foreign purchasers of USA goods are in turn affected by the free market prices of Import Certificates.

Respectfully, Supposn

James972, USA’s trade deficits’ drags upon our nation’s numbers of jobs, wage rates and or wages’ purchasing powers are of my greater priority. Foreign nations unable or unwilling to better compensate their workers are of lesser priority to me.
You don’t share my priorities?

Respectfully, Supposn