Posted on 12/17/2010 3:35:41 AM PST by expat_panama
That’s the point, isn’t it gentlemen?
Statists or mercantilists or political entrepreneurs or whatever they’re called today invented the concept or better the misconception of a “trade deficit”.
It doesn’t exist and it is single entry accounting at its worst.
For all the whining, I'd like to see a protectionist explain how well the government protected the housing market. And how well it will protect the health insurance market. And these bozos want the government to manage industrial policy (more than it does now)?
The blindness of the pro-Chicom ‘free trade’ cult, is that the Communist Chinese approach trade - the very same way that muslim fundamentalists approach religion.
There is no space between religion and government in muslim fundamentalism, and there is no space between trade and government, in Marxism/Leninist central planning.
We project our own values (which when facing an amoral adversary, become in many cases vulnerabilities) too often onto our adversaries.
So some actually see in communism, freedom.
Orwell would be stunned to see, how even conservatives can be so naive.
No need to have the government involved in trade, or taxation. In fact, free all American enterpreneurs, businesses and working Americans from meddlesome bureaucrats seeking ways to meddle.
The simple solution: A universal, immediate, across the board, no-exceptions 100% import tariff. Combined with, and implemented along side the immediate and complete elimination of all government taxation of corporate profits, personal income, and capital gains.
The numbers work. As a nation, our total tax burden is at this point in our history - exactly equal to the monetary value of our total imports. An (exact) match in fact, in 2009.
So. Let’s get our government out of the business of picking winners and losers.
Let’s get our government out of the business of taxing profits, and taxing work.
Replace all of that - with one simple tariff. Which will create the real, effective and completely simple to maintain - incentive to reindustrialize our great nation.
Even if the “free trade” cultists won’t recognize the worth of that. Our children and grand-children will be grateful. Looking back at this moment, as we do to the Greatest Generation. For much the same reason.
Because they’ll actually have jobs, and skills, and freedom in a prosperous and strong America.
What we’re doing now, clearly isn’t working!
The word you meant is lose, not loose. Panama benefits from free trade because of the canal so I don't begrudge your self-interest, however with the continuing development of automation and robotics, geographic production advantages will slowly decline. The disadvantage of high shipping costs and distance from market will slowly increase. While it only became recently possible, we can speed up the adoption of robotics, increase national security, and in the end create more wealth, by slowly reintroducing import taxes at this time.
Let's get some definitions down to help clarify your "facts". You don't own these ideas or these words. If you're interested in learning then let's go.
"equal" - 1. Agreeing in quantity, size, quality, degree, value, etc.; having the same magnitude, the same value, the same degree, etc.; -- applied to number, degree, quantity, and intensity, and to any subject which admits of them; neither inferior nor superior, greater nor less, better nor worse; corresponding; alike; as, equal quantities of land, water, etc. ; houses of equal size; persons of equal stature or talents; commodities of equal value. (Websters)
That's the first definition, but it appears that you're using it also to mean this:
4. Evenly balanced; not unduly inclining to either side; characterized by fairness; unbiased; impartial; equitable; just. (Websters, again)
"my job" is another misnomer. You aren't your bosses property. So "my worker" is also a misnomer. What speakers of colloquial English mean is my job currently or my worker currently. It isn't a permanent possession.
So no one owns their job or their employee, just themselves. If a domestic competitor puts your company out of business you are just as much out of a job and your employer out of an employee, no?
"Free Trade" is another confusing term as used on these threads. Free in the economic sense doesn't mean without cost, but without direct coercion. Indirect coercion like subsidy, discount, tax policy is allowed, as long as the consumer is not forced to buy.
Imagine that someone is selling your favorite product for half price. He does it because his rich uncle is subsidizing the loss. Who loses? The rich uncle. Who gains? You and the subsidized nephew.
You're right to be concerned about subsidies, but only when it is Uncle Sugar (us) doing the subsidizing. That part of the national equation does cost us.
Your fears about Communists are well founded, but better directed against the domestic variety.
I paid $3.10/gal. for gas yesterday. You want to raise my price to $6.20/gal. and can’t understand why I’m looking sideways?
However, when the USA must borrow to purchase foreign made goods...it does not bode well for the future of the US economy.
The “USA” does not trade with China and does not borrow a red cent to buy their products. Individual Americans trade with China — not the government. The government borrows to fund its out-of-control spending; that’s a completely different topic and has nothing to do with trade.
And, by doing this, means that Free Trade does not work.
Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion is, too.
Seems the only argument that Free Trade Communists have in defending Free Trade with Communist China is that “we do not trade with Communist China”. You cannot debate failure, I guess
Oh, and our government has to borrow from Communist China because most of the American wealth has been shipped to Communist China. When you have a massive trade deficit with a nation like Communist China....you have no base to raise revenue. Our Free Trade policies force us to borrow from the Communist Chinese. In effect....The US government funds our suicidal Free Trade agenda by borrowing from the people who already have taken our wealth
If you slap tariffs on Communist Chinese goods....you do not have to borrow from them...and...it fixes the trade imbalance. Right now, the only one against this are Free Traders and Communists
You already pay several dollars in taxes on your gas.
Meanwhile you also pay taxes on the money you earned to pay for the gas. And to pay for the gas station owner’s FICA taxes. And the taxes of auto workers, which you paid - which were built into the cost of the car you’re driving.
Think about freeing America’s (internal) market from all government interference. All taxation.
One big free market.
For all Americans. Want to sell into that market? There’s an entry fee.
We’ve been getting rolled long enough.
Time to fix things. Time to stand up.
The concept of a “trade imbalance” is mythological. One doesn’t exist. It can only exist by force and single entry accounting.
Force - a robber/thief/government takes your watch. (sorry about the repetition)
Single Entry Accounting - The advantage is the simplicity.
“It involves the simplest form of keeping records of financial transactions. Essentially the organization makes two lists, one of income received and one of expenses incurred. This is beneficial for organizations with volunteers with virtually zero accounting or bookkeeping knowledge.
It is essentially like a check register. You credit (right side) your increases and debit (left side) your expenses all the while keeping a running daily balance...
The main disadvantage of single entry bookkeeping is the absence of financial control due to limited detailed records of asset and liability accounts.
It is also easier to make errors with. With double entry bookkeeping everything must balance.”
From here: Basic Accounting Concepts http://searchwarp.com/swa427670.htm
As you can see neither can apply to the trade of the United States a country of more than 300 million people and a production value of $14 trillion per year.
What exactly is the definition of a trade deficit?
Have you ever heard of mercantilism?
Medieval economics?
What exactly is the definition of a trade deficit?
Have you ever heard of mercantilism?
Medieval economics?
CNN’s worked it out. See post 65.
Can we role-play this out?
We have (1)consumers of widgets, (2)domestic producers of widgets, (3) foreign producers of widgets and (4) government (tariff revenue - now the only means to finance the debt, deficit and spending). For simplicities sake we'll ignore the employees who make the widgets, OK?
What is the effect of a 100% tariff on each group. Let's say foreign widgets cost $10 and domestic widgets cost $11 to start.
Walk me through this example.
What's different now is computers, robotics and automation technologies have dropped in price to the point that many manufacturing jobs can be done more cheaply here than in China, with better quality and time to market. The future ain't what it used to be. At this time we could use some government assist getting the ball rolling.
> CNN’s worked it out. See post 65.
You mean:
“No need to have the government involved in trade...”
and:
“The simple solution: A universal, immediate, across the board, no-exceptions 100% import tariff.”
Wait... who imposes the tariff if gov’t isn’t involved??
Gorbachev’s man in the White House. LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.