The costs and benefits of producing or importing.

James972 · Oct 4, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
James972, refer to post #17.

for 6th time: does the liberal want a tax on imported bananas to encourage domestic greenhouse bananas and employment that would cost 10,000% more than tropical imports?? Why or why not?

I'm Supposn · Oct 4, 2018

James972 said:
probably that we should have free trade among all countries for exactly the same reasons. 1+1=2

EdwardBaiamonte, aka James972, unlike myself, possibly DanielPalos doesn't object to your speculating as to what he meant and your assuming to post for him. I don't doubt the correctness of your interpretation but I prefer going to the source himself. Your post reopens a prior difference between us.
The square root of 4 is 2; what shall it profit a man to gain great riches, if he still lacks change for the Coke machine? Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:
EdwardBaiamonte, aka James972, it would be absurd not to believe that USA's states are not in competitive commercial competition, Delegates to what evolved to be the constitutional convention that established the United States of America recognized the natural commercial competition between our states and regions. They NEGOTIATED among themselves to grant the new federal government supreme jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce. The more COMMERCIALLY ADVANTAGED STATES did then COMPROMISE TO FAVOR our best NATIONAL interests.

My allegiance to the USA, (i.e. my nation) is not secondary to consideration for any other concept of a regional or global entities. I’m not amiable to improving USA’s foreign relations by compromising USA’s best economic interests, and particularly compromising the financial interests of USA employees, their dependents, and all enterprises to the extent that their net benefits are dependent upon improved financial conditions of USA’s middle income earners.

USA's adoption of the policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · Oct 4, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
EdwardBaiamonte, aka James972, unlike myself, possibly DanielPalos doesn't object to your speculating as to what he meant and your assuming to post for him. I don't doubt the correctness of your interpretation but I prefer going to the source himself. Your post reopens a prior difference between us.
The square root of 4 is 2; what shall it profit a man to gain great riches, if he still lacks change for the Coke machine? Respectfully, Supposn

for 7th time: does the liberal want a tax on imported bananas to encourage domestic greenhouse bananas and employment that would cost 10,000% more than tropical imports?? Why or why not?

I'm Supposn · Oct 4, 2018

James972 said:
for 6th time: does the liberal want a tax on imported bananas to encourage domestic greenhouse bananas and employment that would cost 10,000% more than tropical imports?? Why or why not?

James972, I repeat, refer to post#17. Respectfully, Supposn

James972 said:
sure it, [i.e. Import Certificate policy] is, it's a protectionist scam to isolate and cripple our industries promoted by those who lack the ability to understand why capitalism is superior to socialism.

James972, but you've never been able to post a convincing explaination to support your opinion. Additionally, Import Certificate policy is certainly not a socialist concept but is amiable to the economic structure of the nation that adopts it. If a capitalist nation such as the USA adopts it, it behaves as pure free competitive enterprise. Your objection is that the policy favors the enterprises and the employees of the nations that would adopt it. You cannot abide a USA trade policy that favors USA's economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

danielpalos · Oct 5, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
DanielPalos, so there's free trade among ALL states in the United States. What's your point?
Respectfully, Supposn

a federal UN would be the same.

James972 · Oct 5, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
James972, I repeat, refer to post#17. Respectfully, Supposn

James972, but you've never been able to post a convincing explaination to support your opinion. Additionally, Import Certificate policy is certainly not a socialist concept but is amiable to the economic structure of the nation that adopts it. If a capitalist nation such as the USA adopts it, it behaves as pure free competitive enterprise. Your objection is that the policy favors the enterprises and the employees of the nations that would adopt it. You cannot abide a USA trade policy that favors USA's economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

for 7th time: does the liberal want a tax on imported bananas to encourage domestic greenhouse bananas and employment that would cost 10,000% more than tropical imports?? Why or why not?

James972 · Oct 5, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
James972, but you've never been able to post a convincing explaination to support your opinion.

??? we are far richer importing bananas than growing our own despite job losses in our domestic banana growing business!! Do you understand why we are far richer?

I'm Supposn · Oct 5, 2018

danielpalos said:
a federal UN would be the same.

DanielPalos, your analogy, similar to USA's federal and its states' government's relationships, the UN should be the legally governing body superior to all of its sovereign member nations' individual governments? The world may someday to evolve to that political environment, but as of now I'm far from ready to consider such a radical proposal.

I'm Supposn said:
EdwardBaiamonte, aka James972, it would be absurd not to believe that USA's states are not in competitive commercial competition, Delegates to what evolved to be the constitutional convention that established the United States of America recognized the natural commercial competition between our states and regions. They NEGOTIATED among themselves to grant the new federal government supreme jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce. The more COMMERCIALLY ADVANTAGED STATES did then COMPROMISE TO FAVOR our best NATIONAL interests.

My allegiance to the USA, (i.e. my nation) is not secondary to consideration for any other concept of regional or global entities. I’m not amiable to improving USA’s foreign relations by compromising USA’s best economic interests, and particularly compromising the financial interests of USA employees, their dependents, and all enterprises to the extent that their net benefits are dependent upon improved financial conditions of USA’s middle income earners.

USA's adoption of the policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Oct 5, 2018

James972 said:
??? we are far richer importing bananas than growing our own despite job losses in our domestic banana growing business!! Do you understand why we are far richer?

James972, you're apparently obsessed about bananas.

I never stated, importing bananas are the cause of a nation's annual trade deficit and thus a primary cause of the importing nation's annual GDP to be less than otherwise.
I did state that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP. You refuse to consider and are unable to logically refute the reasoning supporting that statement.

Due to experiencing an annual negative balance of international trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), for any given amount of net domestic spending to purchase products, that nation's GDP will be less than otherwise; otherwise being if the nation had not experienced an annual trade deficit.

The USA is not far richer because we consume foreign bananas.

Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · Oct 7, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
James972, you're apparently obsessed about bananas.

I never stated, importing bananas are the cause of a nation's annual trade deficit and thus a primary cause of the importing nation's annual GDP to be less than otherwise.
I did state that annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP. You refuse to consider and are unable to logically refute the reasoning supporting that statement.

Due to experiencing an annual negative balance of international trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), for any given amount of net domestic spending to purchase products, that nation's GDP will be less than otherwise; otherwise being if the nation had not experienced an annual trade deficit.

The USA is not far richer because we consume foreign bananas.

Respectfully, Supposn

for 8th time: does the liberal want a tax on imported bananas to encourage domestic greenhouse bananas and employment that would cost 10,000% more than tropical imports?? Why or why not?

I'm Supposn · Oct 7, 2018

James972 said:
for 8th time: does the liberal want a tax on imported bananas to encourage domestic greenhouse bananas and employment that would cost 10,000% more than tropical imports?? Why or why not?

James972, regardless of your obsession with bananas, USA is not richer because we consume foreign bananas and reducing or increasing our consumption of bananas is not expected to significantly affect our economy.

If we adopt the improved policy described within Wikipedia's “import Certificates” article, it would substantially increase our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs and their purchasing powers more than otherwise.
Refer to posts numbers 17, 29, and 34. Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · Oct 8, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
USA is not richer because we consume foreign bananas and reducing or increasing our consumption of bananas is not expected to significantly affect our economy.

so are we poorer because we buy tropical bananas rather than grow our own in greenhouses with American labor?

I'm Supposn · Oct 8, 2018

James972 said:
so are we poorer because we buy tropical bananas rather than grow our own in greenhouses with American labor?

James972, you're obsessessed about bananas.
Irregardless of specific products, due to a nation experiencing an annual negative balance of international trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), for any given amount of net domestic spending to purchase products, that nation's GDP will be less than otherwise; otherwise being if the nation had not experienced an annual trade deficit. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · Oct 10, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.

So do you want to correct our trade deficit by growing our own greenhouse bananas rather then continuing to import tropical bananas at 5% the cost??

I'm Supposn · Oct 11, 2018

James972 said:
So do you want to correct our trade deficit by growing our own greenhouse bananas rather then continuing to import tropical bananas at 5% the cost??

James972, possibly because the improved Import Certificate policy is not applicable to the value of specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to globally traded products, some people mistakenly believe the proposal's concept is product specific. Such people ignore or cannot understand what they have read.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:
James972, regardless of your obsession with bananas, USA is not richer because we consume foreign bananas and reducing or increasing our consumption of bananas is not expected to significantly affect our economy.
If we adopt the improved policy described within Wikipedia's “import Certificates” article, it would substantially increase our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs and their purchasing powers more than otherwise.
Refer to posts numbers 17, 29, and 34. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Oct 11, 2018

James972 said:
So do you want to correct our trade deficit by growing our own greenhouse bananas rather then continuing to import tropical bananas at 5% the cost??

James972, in various forms, by my count, you have asked this same more than 8 times. (The last inquiry was regarding bananas at 20 times imported bananas costs, sometimes it was at 100 times imported bananas costs). I again answered this question in the prior, (#40) post.

As a father and a grandfather, I've learned to be patient and with children that are unable to remember what they have read. But even at the youngest reading age, they did not forget that the question was answered and they generally understood my answers to most of the questions they asked.
If my answer is too complex for you to understand, that's regretable. I tried to keep it simple, but I cannot change my answers to conform to your less than logical concepts. Henceforth, regardless of the form with which you pose this same question, I'll cease responding to it.

Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · Oct 11, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
James972, in various forms, by my count, you have asked this same more than 8 times. (The last inquiry was regarding bananas at 20 times imported bananas costs, sometimes it was at 100 times imported bananas costs). I again answered this question in the prior, (#40) post.

As a father and a grandfather, I've learned to be patient and with children that are unable to remember what they have read. But even at the youngest reading age, they did not forget that the question was answered and they generally understood my answers to most of the questions they asked.
If my answer is too complex for you to understand, that's regretable. I tried to keep it simple, but I cannot change my answers to conform to your less than logical concepts. Henceforth, regardless of the form with which you pose this same question, I'll cease responding to it.

Respectfully, Supposn

for 12th time: Do you want to correct our trade deficit by growing our own greenhouse bananas rather then continuing to import tropical bananas at 5% the cost??

I'm Supposn · Dec 15, 2018

Annual balances of trade indicate if their nation’s production of goods and services exceeded or was less than the nation’s purchases (of final products). All creditable economists agree, trade surpluses contribute, and trade deficits are detrimental to their nation’s GDP.
USA is a chronic annual trade deficit nation. USA’s annual trade deficits are greater than that of any other nation. Many economists contend due to USA’s annual trade deficits’ lesser proportions to our GDPs and our lesser dependence upon exporting, our trade deficits detriments to our annual GDPs are of lesser economic significance.

I’m in agreement with other economists considering the multiplier effects due to production of goods or service products. Producers are often the beneficiaries of goods and services at lesser than “market-price”. Producers desire to keep their prices competitive, generally reduce their prices to reflect lesser production costs. All of the nation’s goods and services contribute to their GDP but domestic production not reflected within the price valuations of exported products, are not recognized and attributed to global trade’s contributions to their nation’s GDP. To those extents, trade surplus nations’ additional GDP due to their international trade, exceeds their net international balances of trade; (i.e. trade surpluses to some extent understate their contributions to their nation’s GDP).

Similarly, for the same reasons, annual trade deficits “crowding” their nation’s domestic products out from their nation’s domestic markets, exceed the amounts of those trade deficits; (i.e. trade deficts to some extents understate their detrimental effects upon their nation’s GDP). I agree with the economists believing that international trade’s affects upon their nation’s GDP are significantly greater than their nation’s net balance of trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · Dec 15, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
Annual balances of trade indicate if their nation’s production of goods and services exceeded or was less than the nation’s purchases (of final products). All creditable economists agree, trade surpluses contribute, and trade deficits are detrimental to their nation’s GDP.
USA is a chronic annual trade deficit nation. USA’s annual trade deficits are greater than that of any other nation. Many economists contend due to USA’s annual trade deficits’ lesser proportions to our GDPs and our lesser dependence upon exporting, our trade deficits detriments to our annual GDPs are of lesser economic significance.

I’m in agreement with other economists considering the multiplier effects due to production of goods or service products. Producers are often the beneficiaries of goods and services at lesser than “market-price”. Producers desire to keep their prices competitive, generally reduce their prices to reflect lesser production costs. All of the nation’s goods and services contribute to their GDP but domestic production not reflected within the price valuations of exported products, are not recognized and attributed to global trade’s contributions to their nation’s GDP. To those extents, trade surplus nations’ additional GDP due to their international trade, exceeds their net international balances of trade; (i.e. trade surpluses to some extent understate their contributions to their nation’s GDP).

Similarly, for the same reasons, annual trade deficits “crowding” their nation’s domestic products out from their nation’s domestic markets, exceed the amounts of those trade deficits; (i.e. trade deficts to some extents understate their detrimental effects upon their nation’s GDP). I agree with the economists believing that international trade’s affects upon their nation’s GDP are significantly greater than their nation’s net balance of trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

or 13th time: Do you want to correct our trade deficit by growing our own greenhouse bananas rather then continuing to import tropical bananas at 5% the cost??

Ahlevah · Dec 25, 2018

James972 said:
There is no cost, only benefit, in importing for example bananas at $.05/LBS rather than producing them here in greenhouses at $10/LBS with high priced American labor. Do you understand?

It depends on the goods in question. I'm willing to cede the banana business to Honduras. I'm NOT willing to cede, say, semiconductors or large airliners to the Chinese.

I'm Supposn · Dec 25, 2018

James972 said:
There is no cost, only benefit, in importing for example bananas at $.05/LBS rather than producing them here in greenhouses at $10/LBS with high priced American labor. Do you understand?

Ahlevah said:
It depends on the goods in question. I'm willing to cede the banana business to Honduras. I'm NOT willing to cede, say, semiconductors or large airliners to the Chinese.

Ahlevah, James972 is partially correct. Mutually agreeing principles enter international trade transactions because they perceive it to be to their benefit; both principle parties are usually correct. But annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation's GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

If you've read some of my posts, you may be aware of my advovating USA adopt the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates”.
Import Certificate policy would significantly reduce, (if not entirely prevents) its USA from continuing to experience our chronic great annual trade deficits while increasing our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

The policy would increase prices to USA purchasers of imported goods. To the extent that those additions to prices exceed what's due to U.S. federal expenses due to the policy, those market induced additional expenses would be an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA's exported goods.

Regrettable consequences of Import Certificate policy are increased prices to its nation's purchasers of imported goods and to whatever extent it may be of net detriment to some foreign nation's exports of goods. But the policy's ability to achieve its purposes, increasing USA's numbers of jobs and the purchasing powers of our GDP and our median wage justifies USA adoption of this policy.

Import Certificate policy is substantially market driven and it couldn't itself prevent any item from being imported. If USA adopted an Import Certificate policy, (regardless of contrary fools' opinions), USA purchasers could choose not to purchase bananas, or purchase imported bananas, or purchase high priced domestic bananas (if any enterprise chooses to produce them in the USA).

Respectfully, Supposn

Ahlevah · Dec 28, 2018

I'm Supposn said:
If you've read some of my posts, you may be aware of my advovating USA adopt the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates”.
Import Certificate policy would significantly reduce, (if not entirely prevents) its USA from continuing to experience our chronic great annual trade deficits while increasing our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

This reminds me of another governmental boondoggle attempt at regulating markets. I remember the Nixon-era price controls on oil in which "old oil," thanks to some nifty tricks by clever but unscrupulous oil traders, magically became "new oil," which could then be sold at a much higher price. I'm sure the crooks have already figured out how to turn black market goods lacking import certificates into legitimate imported goods that can be sold without the cost of the certificates. For example, to an oil refinery, oil is oil, certificate or not, and people won't be looking for import certificates at the gas pump.

I'm Supposn · Dec 29, 2018

Ahlevah said:
This reminds me of another governmental boondoggle attempt at regulating markets. I remember the Nixon-era price controls on oil in which "old oil," thanks to some nifty tricks by clever but unscrupulous oil traders, magically became "new oil," which could then be sold at a much higher price. I'm sure the crooks have already figured out how to turn black market goods lacking import certificates into legitimate imported goods that can be sold without the cost of the certificates. For example, to an oil refinery, oil is oil, certificate or not, and people won't be looking for import certificates at the gas pump.

Ahlevah, you don't understand the Wikipedia “Import Certificates” article, and thus cannot critique the specific proposal? You cannot discuss what's being advocated, but rather discuss irrelevancies my post did not advocate?
Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · Dec 29, 2018

Ahlevah said:
This reminds me of another governmental boondoggle attempt at regulating markets. I remember the Nixon-era price controls on oil in which "old oil," thanks to some nifty tricks by clever but unscrupulous oil traders, magically became "new oil," which could then be sold at a much higher price. I'm sure the crooks have already figured out how to turn black market goods lacking import certificates into legitimate imported goods that can be sold without the cost of the certificates. For example, to an oil refinery, oil is oil, certificate or not, and people won't be looking for import certificates at the gas pump.

You are correct! Its just another tariff tax on the American people that will make them poorer and further cripple our industries. We simple need for our libcommies to get off businesses' back so they are not at a huge disadvantage in international markets.

I'm Supposn · Jan 6, 2019

Ahlevah said:
This, [i.e. Import Certificates proposal] reminds me of another governmental boondoggle attempt at regulating markets. I remember the Nixon-era price controls on oil in which "old oil," thanks to some nifty tricks by clever but unscrupulous oil traders, magically became "new oil," which could then be sold at a much higher price. I'm sure the crooks have already figured out how to turn black market goods lacking import certificates into legitimate imported goods that can be sold without the cost of the certificates. For example, to an oil refinery, oil is oil, certificate or not, and people won't be looking for import certificates at the gas pump.

James972 said:
You are correct! Its just another tariff tax on the American people that will make them poorer and further cripple our industries. We simple need for our libcommies to get off businesses' back so they are not at a huge disadvantage in international markets.

Ahlevah and James972, you'd reduce the embarrassment due to flaunting your ignorance if you first read what it is you presume to criticize.

Respectfully, Supposn

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)”.