Postcard-sized trade agreements would solve our problems By Ambassador

The Hill ^ | 06/18/18 | John K. Veroneau

[yesthatjallen]

While overshadowed by other remarks during the Group of Seven meetings last week, President Trump suggested that trade agreements could be “much simpler” and that they should eliminate all barriers to trade.

The president’s instincts that trade agreements could be both simpler and more comprehensive are correct. Paradoxically, simpler agreements could go further than existing lengthy agreements in eliminating trade barriers.

In fact, the surest way to eliminate all trade barriers would be through a simple, postcard-sized Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

A postcard-FTA would involve a single but comprehensive obligation whereby each party would agree “to treat foreign goods, services and investments no less favorably than domestic goods, services and investments.”

More than any current trade agreement, this simple commitment would produce the proverbial level playing field sought by American businesses, workers and farmers while at the same time serving the best interests of U.S. consumers.

First, such a commitment would necessarily eliminate all tariffs. Because tariffs apply only to imports, their application by definition would cause imports to be treated less favorably than domestic goods and would therefore be impermissible.

Second, this simple commitment would eliminate non-tariff barriers. While countries would be free to regulate as desired to protect national security, consumer welfare, the environment and other legitimate public purposes, such regulations would need to apply equally to both foreign and domestic goods and services.

ETC...

[econjack]

The post card idea could extend to a lot of gov’t “crap”. For example, how ‘bout an IRS tax for that says:

1) Enter income: ________
2) Multiply answer to line 1 by 0.17: ________
3) Send in check for answer to Line 2

No deductions, everyone pays the same percent of income, no gov’t distortion of resource allocation, and no private distortion either. Everyone has at least a little skin in the game.

[DannyTN]

Sounds good to me:

Dear China,

We will be tariffing your products at 25%.
Execpt for x, y, and z which will be at 150%.

Have a nice day.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Most (I'd say “all”; but I've only read a wheelbarrow full of them, so there might be an exception) trade agreements comprise a few lines about “free” trade, sandwiched between several hundred pages of exceptions. Less is definitely more.

At most three pages are required: title page, substantive page (big type, wide margins), and a signature page. (You can't not have a signing ceremony).

[BitWielder1]

Wrong. It should be:
“to treat foreign goods, services and investments no less more favorably than domestic goods, services and investments.”

Tariffs should be low or zero but we reserve the right to enact tariffs on countries who charge tariffs against us, countries where government subsidizes factories to undercut other countries unfairly, who employs slave labor or have unsafe working conditions.
We expect other countries to do the same.

[central_va]

More Adam Smithian Utopian-ism. To even things out we should tariff imports at 100% for 30 years.

[bgill]

So would post card sized Congressional Bills.

[bert]

You somehow can not realize that America is a nation of traders and that Americans love imported products.

America will never revert to your anacchronistic isolationist dreams.

[central_va]

You somehow can not realize that America is a nation of traders and that Americans love imported products.

BS. before WWII America imported less than 3% of GDP.

Globalist took over the party after WWII. America won WWII and normal Americans have been punished for it ever since.

[central_va]

"Isolationism is a category of foreign policies institutionalized by leaders who assert that their nations' best interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts."

By that definition George Washington was an isolationist and a patriot. You OTH are globalist and traitor, 'nuff said.

[bert]

But you can never realize that what you want is not only not what Americans want but never will be.

My definition of isolationist is that uour do not want and are incable of looking beyond your county line.

You keep bringing up george Washington as if that were relevant.

[central_va]

The motivations of a patriot will always be mystery to the traitor.

That part about the county line, insane man, Insane. You've lost it.

[bert]

“The claim of patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel”

[MUDDOG]

Open covenants of trade, openly arrived at.