Comparing Trump's tariffs, pure free trade, and Import Certificates trade policies.

this obviousness is not 'some what beneficial' it is essential to growth because you are broadening and enlarging your market.

if the previous is not true... the later is not true either. this is a rather simpleton view of market dynamics. there are MANY other aspects to a sovereign economy that do not involve trade.

this is not because of a annual trade deficit, this 'hollowing out' of Americas manufacturing base is due to 'Free Trade' agreements that were abused and advantaged by other sovereign nations... it's not the deficit.

that is actually backwards, American families benefit from cheap goods and services... however, there is a cost. Loss of manufacturing base.

that is not a truism... that is not how business works. it has the potential to raise retail or wholesale pricing, but it is not a guarantee that this is the only outcome. smaller margins and renegotiated cost structure is the main outcome to these tariffs because no manufacturer or retailer wants to price out the consumer.

this last paragraph is just word salad mumbo jumbo... it has no meaning.

Mschu18, I, (no less than many others) am pleased that our nation's enterprises are among the global trade participants.

You contend that it's uncertain if USA tariffs do, and the proposed USA income certificate, (IC) policy, would effectively increase prices paid by USA purchasers of foreign goods?
For both of those trade policies, aggregate price increases imported goods consumed in the USA are a net certainty. It cannot be otherwise.

[I'm opposed to tariffs, and I'm a proponent of the IC proposal as described in Wikipedia's article, “Import Certificates”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_cer...

Among credible economists, (including proponents of “pure” free trade), few if any of them refute the assertion, trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's numbers of jobs.
(Unless a nation enjoyed effectively “full-employment”), an annual trade deficit nation's net balance of trade was detrimental to its numbers of jobs.

Of course a national economy is affected by many factors other than its annual net balance of international trade. But (unless a nation enjoyed effectively “full-employment”), due to a an annual negative balance of international trade, in aggregate the nation's workers had had somewhat less opportunities to earn wages. This assertion is valid without regard to whatever was then the nation's annual GDP.
In aggregate, USA's wage dependent families have and will continue to be net detrimentally affected by our annual trade deficits.

Respectfully, Supposn

[QUOTE=MSchu18, ... this [economic detriment] is not because of a annual trade deficit, this 'hollowing out' of Americas manufacturing base is due to 'Free Trade' agreements that were abused and advantaged by other sovereign nations... it's not [due to USA's annual] deficits.

... this last paragraph is just word salad mumbo jumbo... it has no meaning.[/QUOTE]

Mscu18, my post's last paragraph: :Within an IC policy, any increase of foreign goods prices beyond reflecting federal fees that exporters of USA goods choose, (they are not required to pay for acquiring the transferable single use certificates based upon the value of their goods exported from the USA), is an indirect, but effective price subsidy of USA's exported goods. Those federal IC fees should not exceed our governments net administrative expenses due to the trade policy; But unlike tariffs, IC policy would certainly almost,if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits while increasing our GDP more than otherwise",
all referred to the Import Certificates, (IC) policy proposal for USA's global trade. You're disinterested and don't wish to understand it?

IC is a unilateral policy not to be negotiated with other nations. It's OK for us to enter into mutual “most-favored-nations” agreements with other nations. Mutual agreements that the participating nations will treat each others globally traded goods as well as they treat goods imported from any other nation. Otherwise I'm generally opposed to USA negotiating any other kind of trade agreements. IC policy is a unilateral policy that conforms to the most-favored-nations concept. It's not subject to international negotiations between governments.

Respectfully, Suppon

This is a response to,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm among the proponents of the comparatively little known Import Certificates policy for USA's foreign trade
as described in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_cer....

Import Certificates, (IC) policy, just as tariffs, do tax purchasers of goods imported into their nation. However, tariffs cannot achieve any of their purposes if that tax rate's too low.
IC 's primary purpose, is to effectively prevent it's nation from experiencing annual trade deficits of tangible goods. Regardless of the proportional price increases to its nation's import purchasers, IC policy would accomplish its primary task. Thus, an IC government should strive to minimize that tax levied upon its nation's purchasers of imported goods.

Proportionally few, (if any) credible economists, (even among those opposed to anything less than effectively pure free-trade), contend that annual trade deficits are net beneficial to their nations, or would they refute those deficits being net detrimental to their nation's numbers of jobs.

Exporters of U.S. goods would not be required, but the may choose to pay the federal fees for assessment of their cargo. If they so chose, the value of their export cargo is assessed, and a transferable import certificate is issued to them after their cargo has left USA's jurisdiction. Exporters will be motivated to profit from this policy. (No pay, no assessment, no certificate issued).
If we consider Importing and exporting as a single foreign trade industry, IC policy doesn't particularly favor or disadvantage any industry; although it would substantially bolster USA's domestic industries.
IC is a domestic policy not to be a matter of international negotiations. IC policy depends upon the certificates' free market values to find its nation's sweet point on its "Laffer curve".

Respectfully, Supposn

MSchu18, I didn't respond to post's last paragraph. You dismissed my entire last paragraph of this thread's initial post, with the comment, "this last paragraph is just word salad mumbo jumbo... it has no meaning".

I hadn't considered someone responding to a discussion thread entitled "Comparing Trump's tariffs, pure free trade, and Import Certificates trade policies", without bothering to read what is an "Import Certificates" trade policy.
I don't suppose you bothered to Refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article, link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_cer... ?

You can't understand what you haven't read. Respectfully, Suppossn

Peace&Love, due to our annual trade deficits of goods, many domestic factories and other production facilities were simply, and continue to be simply abandoned. Although USA continues to use products that were previously made domestically, those products are simply imported into our nation.

Unless the nation is experiencing effectively "full employment", annual trade deficits are simply net detrimental to their nation's numbers of jobs. A surplus trade nation simply produced more products than in has consumed; a trade deficit has simply consumed more products than it has produced.

Simply because the wealthy can afford to light their cigars with $100 bills, its not prudent for them to do so. Simply because USA can consume more products than we produce, its not prudent for us to do so. Respectfully, Supposn