President Trump's Tariffs - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

President Trump's Tariffs

...

05-26-2018 , 02:03 PM

Supposn

journeyman

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 208

President Trump's Tariffs:

I did not vote for a Democrat or a Republican 2017 presidential candidate or for their electoral college supporters. I indicated my rejection by voting for less than electable 3d party candidate, to demonstrate my opposition to the declared policies of both major parties and their candidates.

I am not among those that squandered their votes in favor of candidates for which they had no confidence. I was particularly opposed to Donald Trump. Although I certainly wish our president well, President Trump's administration has not earned my confidence.

I'm among the proponent of the improved policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. It is superior to free trade or tariff policy. It would very significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits in a manner that would increase USA's domestic production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

We suppose Trump's tariffs on aluminum and steel will not do so, but the tariffs limitations would rather reduce our net production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. If USA taxes imported aluminum and steel, it's preferable that we tax all USA imports, from all nations to the extents their shipments to us contain aluminum or steel.

It's not logical to “protect” USA steel mills but leave their USA customers at disadvantage to imports using cheaper foreign steel, and USA's trade laws should not be judging other nation's wage scales.
When USA customers for USA steel are crowded out of the markets, where's the market for USA steel produced by higher earning USA labor? Additionally, because tariffs, unlike Import Certificates would only be applicable to steel and aluminum, those USA products will continue to be crowded out by any goods or service products that could serve as an alternative to products made with steel or aluminum.

But if the Trump administration can succeed to reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, and increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, regardless of all my other objections to the Trump administration, It's highly likely that I'd vote in favor of re-electing president Donald Trump.

Refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.
Respectfully, Supposn

05-26-2018 , 02:22 PM

bigt2k4

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 15,296

the stupidity just oozes out of the words on my screen. I picture a smug, fat guy, with large amounts of drool falling into his lap as the OP

05-26-2018 , 02:23 PM

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

the election was in 2016 not 2017

nobody votes for the electoral college members

you let russian facebook/twitter/social media ads convince you to vote third party because you’re dangerously uninformed

05-26-2018 , 03:00 PM

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Anyone else getting a real strong "pie made from apples" vibe from the op?

05-26-2018 , 03:03 PM

gregorio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 39,505

Brought to you by the author of threads such as

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

USA goods could be more price competitive.
________________________________________
I’m a proponent of a unilateral substantially market driven global trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”.
If it were adopted by the USA it would almost, (if not entirely) eliminate USA’s chronic trade deficits of goods; it’s would likely increase and never be a cause of decreasing USA’s gross domestic production’s reduction, (GDP). Trade deficits are a drag upon their nation’s GDPs and consequentially upon their numbers of jobs which in turn is a drag upon wages’ purchasing powers.

Referring to Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article:
The certificates’ global open market prices per U.S. dollar of face values determine the extent of the policies almost direct effect upon prices of foreign goods sold to USA purchasers and the indirect subsidy effect upon prices of USA products sold to foreign purchasers.
USA exporters that request their goods to be assessed must also agree to pay the federal fees that are intended to defray entire federal direct expenses due to the USA unilateral substantially market driven Import Certificate policy. Exporters of USA goods would be motivated to profit from acquiring the valuable transferable certificates that are issued by the U.S. Treasury Department.
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office would annually monitor and advise congress as to the fee rate per assessed dollar value that would be appropriate to defray all direct federal expenditures due to the Import Certificate policy.
//////////////////////////////////////
Prices of the transferable Import Certificates determined within competitive global markets drive the additional costs to USA purchasers of imported goods and the extent of indirect subsidy for USA’s exported goods.
The federal fees passed onto USA purchasers of foreign goods is the minimum expected increases of prices to those purchasers.
USA consumers balking at USA imports’ increased prices would determine the maximum rate of certificates’ global prices.

If the certificates’ global price rates should be insufficient, exporters of USA goods would not trouble to deal with them and fewer certificates will be issued.
If issued certificates do not satisfy USA consumers effective demands for foreign goods, the shortfall would increase the global certificate markets' rates prices. But additionally the law could be drafted as to provide for congressional executive agreements to interrupt the enactment of this trade policy because there are no longer any reasonable expectations for chronic annual USA trade deficits. The Import Certificate laws and regulations can still remain “on the books”.

Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
Respectfully, Supposn

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs
.
Excerpted from Wikipedia’s article entitled “Balances of trade”.

========================== Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP.
========== Annual trade surpluses are immediate and direct additions to their nations’ GDPs.
To some extent exports’ induce additional increases to the GDPs that are not reflected within the export products’ prices; thus trade surpluses contributions to their GDP are generally understated.
Products’ prices generally reflect their producers’ production supporting expenditures. Producers often benefit from some production supporting goods and services at lesser or no cost to the producers.
For example governments may deliberately locate or increase the capacity of their infrastructure, or provide other additional considerations to retain or attract producers within their own jurisdictions. Nations' schools’ and colleges' curriculums may provide job applicants specifically suited to the producer’s needs; or provide specialized research and development. Nations’ entire productions contribute to their GDPs but unless those goods and services are entirely reflected within globally traded products, theses other export supporting productions are not entirely identified and attributed to their nations’ global trade and they do additionally contribute to their nation's economy.

============= Annual trade deficits are immediate and indirect reducers of their nations’ GDPs.
Trade deficits make no net contribution to their nations’ GDPs but the importing nations indirectly deny themselves of the benefits earned by producing nations; (refer to “Annual trade surpluses are immediate and direct additions to their nations’ GDPs”). Among what’s being denied is familiarity with methods, practices, manipulation of tools, materials and fabrication processes.
The economic differences between domestic and imported goods occur prior to the goods entry within the final purchasers' nations. After domestic goods have reached their producers shipping dock or imported goods have been unloaded on to the importing nation’s cargo vessel or entry port’s dock, similar goods have similar economic attributes.
Although supporting products not reflected within the prices of specific items are all captured within the producing nation’s GDP, those supporting but not reflected within prices of globally traded goods are not attributed to nations' global trade. Trade surpluses' contributions and trade deficits' detriments to their nation's GDPs are understated. The entire benefits of production are earned by the exporting nations and denied to the importing nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

Don’t vote for ineffective Democrats; vote for none of the above.

The Democratic Party leaders are not overly respectful of the party’s populist roots; they believe themselves able with impunity to disregard or do all but spit upon liberal voters.
The party has too often and too far acquiesced and surrendered to conservatives. They’re much less able to accomplish anything sustainable.

I hear and read of Tea Party’s taking control of the Republican Party insures conservatives future inability to occupy the White House or gain control of both congressional chambers.

I m a populist living in a blue state. I’m opposed to “trickle down” economic theorists and gauge a political party’s national political effectiveness by their ability to influence our nation's political policies; I consider the Tea Party as an extremely effective political party; (even if no Tea Party candidate is ever elected to office).

All parties are more effective when they occupy elected offices and less effective when they lose political elections. But unlike Democrats, Republicans and particularly the Tea Party are recently and currently much less ineffective when they are not in power.
I attribute this to the Tea Party’s strategic outlook, they of course want to be elected but their primary goal is exert maximum influence upon our nation’s political policies. The Tea Party will punish Republicans who they perceive to be hindering Tea Party goals.

Republicans have greater fear and more respect for the ability and willingness of Tea Party to seek retribution for anything undermining or even lesser adherence to conservatism. Republicans believe within safer election districts they need only fight general election skirmishes; but if they fail to respect the Tea Party they evoke all out take-no-prisoners primary wars.

Those more on the left of the political spectrum, (e.g. liberals or populists) have not profited from the Tea Party’s examples and thus they can be disrespected or ignored by the remainder of the Democratic Party. I cannot recall a single significant Clinton administration's economic or social accomplishment that has not been undone by the following Republican administrations.

I live in a blue state. A Democratic candidate not additionally listed on the ballot as a more liberal third party candidate cannot gain my vote.
I do not share the Green Party’s political priorities but I am not generally opposed to their platform and vote for their candidates.

I regret that my state does not profit from Nevada’s example. Nevada voters can demonstrate rejection of all of an office's candidates listed upon the ballot by indicating their votes are for “none of (the) above”. Rather than my prior practice of not voting within many general elections, I intend to commence entering “NOA” as a write in candidate within general elections lacking any appropriate candidates on the ballots.

Respectfully, Supposn

and posts such as

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

I did not vote for Donald Trump in 20016 and I’m very much unlikely to do so in 20020; BUT if during his administration, he signs and enacts an “Import Certificate” policy as described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” or he strives to have such a bill passed and runs on a platform to sign such a bill, it’s extremely likely I’d vote for President Donald Trump in 2020.

That bill would effectively eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods, and more than otherwise increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage. Rather than being a net source of tax revenue, the policy behaves as an indirect but effective subsidy of prices to foreign purchasers of USA exported goods.
All the trade policy’s net direct costs are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods. The substantially market (rather than entirely government) driven trade policy could not halt the importation of any item for which there’s an effective demand among USA consumers of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

05-26-2018 , 03:50 PM

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigt2k4

the stupidity just oozes out of the words on my screen. I picture a smug, fat guy, with large amounts of drool falling into his lap as the OP

That is harsh dunk for a guy who seems well meaning enough, but is like the world's weirdest single issue voter.

Last edited by AllTheCheese; 05-26-2018 at 03:59 PM. Reason: Typo

05-26-2018 , 04:05 PM

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

I will say Supposn, you should have voted for Hillary Clinton, because she loves a nice technocratic, market-based solution like import certificates.

Donald Trump wants to solve illegal immigration by building a wall. He thought we should have paid for the Iraq War by stealing their oil. Hate to break it to you, but your dreams of a technocratic utopia will not be made true by policy wonk Donald Trump.

05-26-2018 , 04:10 PM

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Anyone else getting a real strong "pie made from apples" vibe from the op?

Oh, you're just noticing the way he's talking to you now. You see, it turns out he is an American citizen after all. Apparently, he just plumb forgot about it. Say, let's take a relaxed attitude toward work and watch the baseball match. The "Ny" Mets are his favorite squadron

05-27-2018 , 01:33 AM

Supposn

journeyman

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 208

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

ScreaminAsian, we here all appreciate your logo, it warms us up. Yes, you're right; I sit corrected because I do not stand over my keyboard. The election was in 2016, not 2017. Our Siberian clocks run slower.

We here are sufficiently informed and know that no one has ever had an opportunity to directly vote for their chosen United States presidential candidate; (unless a candidate for the Electoral College has ever later been a viable U.S. presidential candidate. We here are not absolutely certain but believe that such an incident has never occurred. We'd appreciate if you can arrange for us to purchase Google search software using rubles as payment.

We suppose that you were sick on the day they explained the Electoral College in your school. It pleases us to inform you that Main and Nebraska voters actually elect who shall serve in the Electoral College as someone similar to a proxy for the voter's chosen presidential candidate. In the remainder of USA states, the voters vote for their state's political party's team of candidates to serve as proxies. You did vote against Hillary's proxies as we urged you to do?

Interestingly, electoral college members from most, if not all U.S. States are not legally bound to vote for the candidate they professed to represent. You have no conception how much we were concerned about that. Two months sending posts in Americanized English, and we could have been betrayed by someone whose name we would not even remember.

Throughout your nation's history, some have not voted as they had pledged to do. It's the same here. We're promised Vodka and caviar, and we're fortunate if we can get a taste of cabbage borscht.

But so far, so good; those renegades have not consequentially affected the determination of who should be the president of the United States.

We live within very peculiar times. It's my opinion you Americans should fix that law to be more like explicit, more like Russia. When we're told for whom to vote for, we obey. You want your Supreme Court to again choose your president?

Respectfully, Supposn of Siberia

05-27-2018 , 03:50 PM

#10

TeflonDawg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,947

wat

and lol @ Main

...