Reducing import purchases 50%

Reiver, I inquired if your references to your use of the phrase “static and dynamic”: referred to constant and variable factors for determining some alternatives to be considered when seeking a comparatively advantageous solution?

I understand both the advantages or disadvantages that may be attributable to “first moves". How is that germane to either of our positions?

If you have explained this in prior responses, I plead an inability to recall what I suppose to be something not related to the positions we hold within this thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

You talked nonsense. You're trying to refer to factors of production, used to refer to the distinction between the supposed short run and long run equilibrium. You've already been told that is nonsense, given we're referring with dynamic comparative advantage to technical progress (here, in reaction, to first mover advantage)

I've never seen you make a valid economic comment

 

Reiver, you accused me of “flummoxing” within one post
and within your following post you wrote:
. “You talked nonsense. You're trying to refer to factors of production, used to refer to the distinction between the supposed short run and long run equilibrium. You've already been told that is nonsense, given we're referring with dynamic comparative advantage to technical progress (here, in reaction, to first mover advantage”

You cite my writing as “flummoxing” but I cannot accept the honor you wish to bestow upon me.
If we were to discount all of your previous posts, this paragraph establishes your mastery of gibberish. Additionally your accusing anyone else’s writing as flummoxing demonstrates your ability to act with the highest degree of “chutzpah”. I can only be instructed by the example of your accomplishments.

You are certainly worthy of admiration. Respectfully, Supposn

 

You haven't said anything in this reply. You can't get past the simple reality: comparative advantage destroys the argument that you have monotonously spun

 

Explain in this scenario how imports gain jobs?

Please explain the employment landscape in the USA if we suddenly move towards $10 trillion in annual imports instead of the current $2-$3 trillion while GDP remains relatively flat at $15 trillion?

 

Trade increases economic activity. It also further promotes entrepreneurial behaviour. Seeing imports as a bad is just mercantilism, nothing more. For example, in your eyes intermediate good imports are a 'job loser' (even though they're directly part of the existence of jobs)

 

The increased economic activity associated with each stage of the import process certainly requires lots of jobs in the USA. However, these same jobs, like transportation, wholesale, retail, finance, etc. are required if all the products were produced in the USA. Therefore, there is a loss of employment due to imports because 'we' are not producing.

Exports generate income in the USA and are a component of GDP. Imports generate income offshore and are subtracted from GDP. GDP is an indicator of how much ‘we’ are producing…and when we produce less and import more then GDP is reduced. When GDP is reduced unemployment increases.

As I have clearly stated previously, I have no problem with imports, and I know jobs are created by imports, but if we don’t in parallel export as much as we import, then GDP is reduced and unemployment increases…

 

Given you're making comment alien to basic economics, I'll just ask: prove it. (NB You'll dodge)

 

"The increased economic activity associated with each stage of the import process certainly requires lots of jobs in the USA. However, these same jobs, like transportation, wholesale, retail, finance, etc. are required if all the products were produced in the USA. Therefore, there is a loss of employment due to imports because 'we' are not producing"

What in the above quotation needs to be proven? The same support services for imports are also required by exports and/or anything produced for domestic consumption...both imports and exports and domestic consumption require transportation, wholesale, retail, finance, service, etc. The only difference between the two is imported goods are produced outside of the USA while all other goods are produced inside the USA...meaning a loss of US jobs for everything produced outside of the USA. No where do I imply imports are bad or to reduce/stop imports, on the contrary they are great. However, if the loss of production from imports is not offset by the production of exports or domestic consumption, then there is a net loss of US jobs...

 

So you can't actually prove it? Doesn't surprise! Skewing towards lower imports will assuredly mean increased inefficiency and therefore long term labour market damage

 

So it's a reading comprehension issue...hmmm...try reading this again but slower this time "No where do I imply imports are bad or to reduce/stop imports, on the contrary they are great."

 

Sounds like you don't really realise just how hypocritical your arguments have been.

 

If everybody stops buy that many imported products, 2/3 of the retail outlets in this country would go out of business. I guess that what liberals want.

 

S Mevins, within the proposed transferable Import Certificate, (IC) trade policy, the imported portion of a product’s assessed value is not germane to its assessed valuation.

Exporters of goods from the USA agreeing to pay the fees (that defray all direct federal expenses due to this trade policy) are entitled to have their goods assessed.
Importers of ANY goods have surrendered transferable single use Import of face values equal to their goods’ assed values.

It’s reasonable to assume that ICs of appropriate face values have been collected on behalf of any imported goods or materials integral to any goods within the USA.
[We don’t want this policy to be applicable to artifacts or memorabilia or antiques. It would be reasonable not to assess products that were produced or essentially rebuilt five years prior to their passing through USA’s borders].

Respectfully, Supposn

 

S Mevins, within post #89 I referred to a proposed unilateral transferable Import Certificate policy for USA’s global trade. That’s not this thread’s topic.

Refer to thread entitled “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage”
http://www.politicalforum.com/econo...e-trade-deficit-increase-gdp-median-wage.html

or google Wikipedia's article entitled "Import Certificates".

Respectfully, Supposn

 

Won't work. There's a reason people are buying imports, they're a better deal or a better solution. Asking people to buy stuff that's more expensive or lesser quality just so you can have a job is basically asking for charity. It's not a viable model.

You want to reduce imports? Find a way to make those things better or cheaper here.





​

 

Great post - it also reduces the tendency for war. Voluntary trade provides incentives for peace.

 

Taxpayer, I agree that it is unreasonable to expect or demand individual persons and enterprise to think and act altruistically on behalf of our nation with no deliberate or unconscious regard for their own circumstances.

But it is also unreasonable to expect USA to overcome foreign products price advantages due to those nations lesser labor costs.

Historically nations have never been able to eternally advantages of technical knowledge or methods of production. Due to improving speeds of communications and the greater inter-relationships of many more people), thus far the durations prior to confidential information becoming more common knowledge have been constantly being reduced.
Thus it is unreasonable to expect national advantages due technology or methods being retained. And without modifications of our global trade policy, it is also unreasonable to expect USA to overcome foreign products price advantages while the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar and the purchasing powers of U.S. wages exceed those of other nations.

I am a proponent of a unilateral market driven Import Certificate policy for USAs global trade. Refer to the thread entitled Reduce the trade deficit; increase numbers of jobs and median wage:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22837&pid=100028647&st=0&#entry100028647

The following text has been excerpted from the thread within the Economy and Business forum entitled
. Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations GDPs;
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22878&st=0
Respectfully, Supposn
//////////////////////////
Hobbes & JohnFrmCleveland, if outsourcing enables enterprises to acquire suitable goods at lesser costs and furthermore reducing their costs by reducing their labor force, they should and will do so. They will do so without regard for the national sources of the purchased products.

There’s no doubt of the general immediate financially benefits to the individual participants within global trade and all purchasers and users of imported products but the immediate financial benefits due to imported goods do not fully compensate for trade deficit’s financially detrimental effects upon those dependent upon USA’s wages and salaries or for the those effects impact upon our nation’s entire economy.​

 

Originally Posted by Reiver:
Trade increases economic activity. It also further promotes entrepreneurial behaviour. Seeing imports as a bad is just mercantilism, nothing more. For example, in your eyes intermediate good imports are a 'job loser' (even though they're directly part of the existence of jobs)

Steady Pie & Reiver, the USA generally, (but certainly not in regard to a few exceptions such as price supported agricultural products), practices free global trade.

When our products are prevented from being imported into other nations, (particularly when they grant other foreign products more favorable access into their domestic markets), or foreign nations “dump” their products into USA's domestic markets at lesser prices than those products are sold within their own domestic markets, our federal government have sought remedies from the Haig international courts: USA has usually lost their case.

The point is that under USA's present striving for free trade, a significant number of nations are for their own purposes effectively undermining USA’s attempts to export.

Similar to tariffs, an Import Certificate policy would be of no net cost to our national budget but would increase prices of foreign goods sold within USAs purchasers of imports that would defray the proposals cost; (i.e. both policies would be of no net cost to the USA governments). Unlike tariffs, the Import Certificate policy would behave as an indirect but effective subsidy for USA exports.

An Import Certificate policy for global trade is not pure free trade but it is certainly pure free competitive enterprise.

Refer to the thread entitled Reduce the trade deficit; increase numbers of jobs and median wage:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22837&pid=100028647&st=0&#entry100028647

Respectfully, Supposn

 

I support unilateral and unconditional abolition of protectionist policy. The only interest should be opening up voluntary trade.

 

Americans don't pay for imports. The companies that sell them their products do.
If you want companies to reduce the money they spend on imported goods, that means less quality products.
Maybe even less products in general, which would lead to a massive increase in consumer prices.

Companies would fail and and the lower/middle class would struggle to pay for what have now become luxury goods.
What we should be doing is making the importation process easier. More foreign goods means cheaper consumer prices and forces American businesses to act more competitive.
It also adds revenue to foreign businesses by allowing their companies to sell their products without tariffs. Greenland for example, has a negative trade deficit that would easily be offset if they didn't pay tariffs.

 

I wonder about reduced domestic production if imports are encouraged? You can say that American businesses must compete with offshore industry but what does reality tell us? I prefer an opposite approach in which we encourage greater exports...which means we are producing in the USA and competing with offshore. Actually...we need a balance of imports and exports...

 

It isn't encouraging imports. It is creating lower prices on imported goods. If there is a commodity someone in Lagos, Nigeria needs, that we create in Yugoslavia, it will get there no matter how high the tariffs are. The price will just be reflective of the extra burden the exporter had to pay. Same with sales tax. Although corporations pay it, they all raise their price for the consumer.

 

You clearly said "What we should be doing is making the importation process easier"...which in my book means encouraging imports.

Open trade works fine between most all nations. If there is a demand for something which cannot be produced domestically then it will come from outside of that nation...imports. The more that can be produced domestically the less demand for imports. Although, imports create a competitive atmosphere which usually lowers consumer prices and gives us more options.

Taxes are an expense to business and are a cost of doing business, therefore, they must be reconciled in the prices of their products and services. Those who believe the US should greatly increase taxes on business are just being silly...

 

Oh, import purchases will eventually decline. A natural economic phenomena.
It's just a matter of whether we want to wait until everyone is poor enough that they stop purchasing from overseas.