U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2019, 11:19 AM
 
1,748 posts, read 885,413 times
Reputation: 503

Advertisements

Most favored nation and retaliation:

I'm a proponent of USA adhering to a policy of “most favored nation” even if no formal agreement exists between us and the nonbelligerent nations.

During our history, we often had severe political differences among ourselves but we strived not to consider our differences when dealing with matters beyond our shores. If any foreign nation treats the entities of other nations with greater preference than that of USA and our allies or entities, we should firmly retaliate.

This should be our policy regardless of whatever is our nation's majority party, regardless of how small the injury to us or ours, or to how much lesser worthy of concern is the injury, or what may be the net detrimental extent of injury to ourselves if we choose to retaliate. A lesser policy diminishes our eventual future self- interests.

We should strive that any retaliatory action we take should be meaningful, but realize that failure to take any action diminishes ourselves.

We should strive that the extent of our retaliation not be inappropriately too severe because that also diminishes ourselves and our reputation. Additionally, if due to our severe retaliation an adversary is subject to what they consider to be the severest of injury, they may well decide that they need not consider improving our mutual relationship, but rather continue or escalate whatever harm they can do to us.

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2019, 07:45 AM
 
13,690 posts, read 19,813,183 times
Reputation: 22832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Most favored nation and retaliation:

I'm a proponent of USA adhering to a policy of “most favored nation” even if no formal agreement exists between us and the nonbelligerent nations.

During our history, we often had severe political differences among ourselves but we strived not to consider our differences when dealing with matters beyond our shores. If any foreign nation treats the entities of other nations with greater preference than that of USA and our allies or entities, we should firmly retaliate.

This should be our policy regardless of whatever is our nation's majority party, regardless of how small the injury to us or ours, or to how much lesser worthy of concern is the injury, or what may be the net detrimental extent of injury to ourselves if we choose to retaliate. A lesser policy diminishes our eventual future self- interests.

We should strive that any retaliatory action we take should be meaningful, but realize that failure to take any action diminishes ourselves.

We should strive that the extent of our retaliation not be inappropriately too severe because that also diminishes ourselves and our reputation. Additionally, if due to our severe retaliation an adversary is subject to what they consider to be the severest of injury, they may well decide that they need not consider improving our mutual relationship, but rather continue or escalate whatever harm they can do to us.

Respectfully, Supposn
That's fine.
But I think we all agree with the above, but you sound like some talking-head politician dancing around a question and refusing to make a true meaningful stand on one particular issue or another. What's the point of your thread? Say something!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2019, 11:17 AM
 
1,748 posts, read 885,413 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
That's fine.
But I think we all agree with the above, but you sound like some talking-head politician dancing around a question and refusing to make a true meaningful stand on one particular issue or another. What's the point of your thread? Say something!
Dd714, I suppose you're correct.

Refer to //www.city-data.com/forum/econo...-annual-3.html .

I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates .

I understand but disagree with the majority of credible economists believing pure free trade is actually every individual nation's best trade policy.
I'm amazed at the number of people believing trade deficits are beneficial to their nation's domestic production. Credible economists that are advocates of USA seeking a pure free trade policy believe our annual chronic trade deficits in proportion to our GDPs, are not of any substantial significance.

I'm among those for valid reasons contending nations' trade balances contributions to trade surplus, and detriments to trade deficit nations' annual GDPs understate their effects upon their nation's GDP.

I concur with the minority of credible economists contending that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits are of economic significance and net detrimental to our nation's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2019, 11:37 AM
 
4,521 posts, read 3,647,466 times
Reputation: 13741
Most of America lives in total ignorance of what our government and it's boss, the corporate conglomerates, have been up to with regard to world trade and the creation of client states around the globe. In his book, New Rulers of The World, John Pilger lays out the design of American corporate supremacy goals and how they have resulted in many of the US client states going broke and relinquishing their resources as payment to the world's banks..

It allows a peek into the workings of the IMF and it's brutal "structural adjustment" fixes which have brought an extreme form of contrived poverty to millions, in that vein, any talk of MFN status seems to reflect a total cluelessness about government. And further, the idea that "we," as individual citizens, includes the top brass of American corporate power along with the cabal of government trade officials seems to speak to more clueless notions of our personal interests being one with US foreign policies. I'd think that having a savvy world view of things helps when we attempt to properly frame the workings of government.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2019, 11:49 AM
 
13,690 posts, read 19,813,183 times
Reputation: 22832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Dd714, I suppose you're correct.

Refer to //www.city-data.com/forum/econo...-annual-3.html .

I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates .

I understand but disagree with the majority of credible economists believing pure free trade is actually every individual nation's best trade policy.
I'm amazed at the number of people believing trade deficits are beneficial to their nation's domestic production. Credible economists that are advocates of USA seeking a pure free trade policy believe our annual chronic trade deficits in proportion to our GDPs, are not of any substantial significance.

I'm among those for valid reasons contending nations' trade balances contributions to trade surplus, and detriments to trade deficit nations' annual GDPs understate their effects upon their nation's GDP.

I concur with the minority of credible economists contending that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits are of economic significance and net detrimental to our nation's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn
There you go, thanks. In contrast I am all as free trade as it goes. No tarrifs, no quotas, etc. I work in the global economy, I work for a foreign company.
HOWEVER....
However it takes two to tango, what do we do with other countries that do not embrace free trade? What do we do with countries that are putting tarrifs on our products? What do we do with countries that agree to certain trade agreements and then go back on these deals? What do we do with countries who outright steal and copy our technology? What do we do with countries who embrace mercantilism as a financial policy?

In those cases, those countries will soon learn the financial power of the US and the ability to punish them with tariffs until they financially bleed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2019, 10:03 AM
 
1,748 posts, read 885,413 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
There you go, thanks. In contrast I am all as free trade as it goes. No tarrifs, no quotas, etc. I work in the global economy, I work for a foreign company.
HOWEVER....
However it takes two to tango, what do we do with other countries that do not embrace free trade? What do we do with countries that are putting tarrifs on our products? What do we do with countries that agree to certain trade agreements and then go back on these deals? What do we do with countries who outright steal and copy our technology? What do we do with countries who embrace mercantilism as a financial policy?

In those cases, those countries will soon learn the financial power of the US and the ability to punish them with tariffs until they financially bleed.
Dd714, I'm not a proponent of tariffs, but rather USA adopting the improved trade policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. Both protectionist policies pass their net costs onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
Unlike tariffs, the substantially market-driven Import Certificate policy would assure significant, if not entire elimination of USA's great chronic annual trade deficits of goods, while more than otherwise increasing our GDP, numbers of jobs, and their wages. This remains true even if that price increase is only a penny per item.

Protectionist trade policy nation's must willingly accept the sacrifices that accompany their strategies. Thus far in these cases, both the Chinese and president Trump's administration are willing to play chicken against each other.
Those sacrifices are borne within both nations by their purchasers of imported goods and producers of exported goods that are subject to tariffs.

The greatest portion of USA sacrifices will be borne by the producers of agricultural products which are more concentrated in the central and southern states that elected President Trump. The Republicans are now seeking federal spending to mitigate the detriments to the agricultural industry. I advocate the House of Representatives Democratic majority insist that those federal budget costs be paid for by repealing all of the Republican's unjustified greater tax rate cuts granted to their wealthier supporters.

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2019, 03:12 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
5,881 posts, read 2,639,596 times
Reputation: 10765
Punishing the hard-working citizens for the faults of a government they have no control over.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 06:30 AM
 
13,690 posts, read 19,813,183 times
Reputation: 22832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Dd714, I'm not a proponent of tariffs, but rather USA adopting the improved trade policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. Both protectionist policies pass their net costs onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
Unlike tariffs, the substantially market-driven Import Certificate policy would assure significant, if not entire elimination of USA's great chronic annual trade deficits of goods, while more than otherwise increasing our GDP, numbers of jobs, and their wages. This remains true even if that price increase is only a penny per item.

Protectionist trade policy nation's must willingly accept the sacrifices that accompany their strategies. Thus far in these cases, both the Chinese and president Trump's administration are willing to play chicken against each other.
Those sacrifices are borne within both nations by their purchasers of imported goods and producers of exported goods that are subject to tariffs.

The greatest portion of USA sacrifices will be borne by the producers of agricultural products which are more concentrated in the central and southern states that elected President Trump. The Republicans are now seeking federal spending to mitigate the detriments to the agricultural industry. I advocate the House of Representatives Democratic majority insist that those federal budget costs be paid for by repealing all of the Republican's unjustified greater tax rate cuts granted to their wealthier supporters.

Respectfully, Supposn
Tariffs are essentially a tax. The revenue from import tariffs goes into the US treasury. They do not need to repeal tax rate cuts, they simply need to transfer the revenue from tariffs to those that have suffered the most.
That's simplified of course, there are other impacts. But remember tariffs on exports have always been in place and business have always suffered that cost, it's nothing new - the goal, the end game is to eliminate tariffs, particularly unbalanced ones.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 08:43 AM
 
13,690 posts, read 19,813,183 times
Reputation: 22832
Forbes disagree's on effectiveness of Import Certificate approach. I have no opinion on it...yet. Didn't have time to read it in detail. Just thought I would offer it as food for thought.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#6e3c28982372
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 05:12 PM
 
1,748 posts, read 885,413 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Forbes disagree's on effectiveness of Import Certificate approach. I have no opinion on it...yet. Didn't have time to read it in detail. Just thought I would offer it as food for thought.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#6e3c28982372
Dd714, Three of Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy's extraordinary attributes are:
(1) Any additional prices to USA importers of foreign products that are beyond the direct federal expenditures, (i.e. market rather than government's determined price increases) due to the policy, serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy to USA's exported goods.
(2) Regardless whatever is USA's import goods price increases due to our adopting Import Certificate policy, regardless of how small of price increases per unit to USA purchasers of imported goods due to the policy, the policy will significantly, if not entirely eliminate USA's great annual chronic trade deficits of goods.
(3) Regardless of foreign responses to USA adopting this trade policy, our annual GDP, numbers of jobs, and their purchasing powers due to this policy would be more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from Wikipedia's species of 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).

The act should be self-funding. Only those exporters of goods from the USA who choose to pay fees that would fund all of the act’s entire net expenses should have their goods assessed and receive the transferable ICs based upon that assessment. Exporter’s potential profits would motivate them to pay those fees”.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:57 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top