Thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity.
What I had in mind (such as it is) was that in terms of trade, if a country
was in deficit, there would be a tax on the export of goods, not on imports
as that would increase the price to the consumers in the deficit country.
As to balance of payments, a country in deficit would tax the inflow,
making the money more expensive and the outflow, making the money less
valuable to the foreign holder.
I'm not sure I have my mind wrapped around this correctly since deductive
logic has never been my strong point. I tend more to using the inductive.
Perhaps someone can make my point more clearly?
Regards
Ed G
END
At 07:38 PM 02/03/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>As long as the tax is placed on the country which is sending its goods
>rather than the receiving country since simple bribes to those making the
>decision in the receiving countries places the burden on everyone in the
>country.
>
>Bill Ward
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>> I would suggest that the current imbalance of trade and payments be
>> subject to a tax that would provide an incentive toward a balance. The
>> amount of the tax would or should be set at a level that would not act
>as a
>> barrier but as a progressive inhibitor for any country to subjugate any
>
>> other country through the use of money or trade imbalance.
>>
>> Ed Goertzen,
>> Oshawa
>>
>>
>
>
Ed Goertzen,
Oshawa
