Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog

The Trade Agreements Negotiated by the U.S. Have Been a Disaster for U.S. Workers. and the U.S. Economy
Raymond Richman, 5/26/2015

In  seeking a Trans-Pacific free trade agreement, the U.S. is continuing a policy of seeking international trade agreements in spite of the fact that all of the agreements it negotiated since 1966 have converted the U.S. from the world's leading creditor nation to the world  to the world’s leading debtor nation. In 1947, the U.S. began negotiations seeking an international General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). There were eight rounds of negotiation from 1947 to 1994. They had little effect on the U.S. trade balance until the Kennedy round, 1964-1966. The trade deficits exploded after the Uruguay round. 1986-1993, in which 123 nations participated and which created the World Trade Organization (WTO) which began operations in 1995. The creation of the WTO marked the beginning of the end of the USA as the world’s leading industrial power. The North American free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada in 1993, the granting of permanent most-favored-nation trade status to China in 1980, the free trade agreement with Korea, all produced large trade deficits and cost millions of American jobs. These agreements led to a major exodus of U.S. manufacturing firms overseas.    

The US ran a trade surplus in 1981 of $3.1 billion. By 1983, the US experienced a trade deficit of $35.1 billion. By the end of the Uruguay round, 1983-1994, and the creation of the WTO in 1995, the U.S. trade deficit had grown to $105.3 billion. The trade deficit peaked in 2006 at over $800 billion and in 2014 it amounted to $467.6 billion.  ...


Comments: 0

Michelle Malkin: U.S. harmonizes its patent laws with Europe
Howard Richman, 5/24/2015

In preparation for the Obamatrade deal with Europe, the United States has adopted Europe's anti-innovation patent laws. Michelle Malkin is on the story. She writes:

The AIA’s [America Invents Act's] primary agenda? “Harmonizing” our patent laws with the rest of the world to reward paper-pushers who are “first to file” at the patent office, instead of those who are “first to invent.” These and other measures enacted by Obama threaten to drive garage tinkerers and small inventors — the designers, engineers and builders of American prosperity — out of the marketplace. Longtime venture capitalist Gary Lauder noted that the first-to-file system has suppressed solo and small-business innovation in Europe and Japan. “The U.S. gets 10 times the angel and venture capital of Western Europe — which recently declared an ‘innovation emergency,'” Lauder observed. “So why are we harmonizing with them? They should be harmonizing with us.”

America's patent laws have been moving in this direction for years, due to foolish decisions by the DC federal court. More and more, patents are being filed, not by those who are developing new inventions, but by those who wish to sue those who eventually develop the new inventions.

Inventors should, at the very least, be forced to produce working prototypes of their invention before they can apply for patents. I would like to see a much tougher patent process in place, but also one which includes automatic grants to produce the invention whenever a patent is awarded.

Which American President Holds a Patent?

By the way, Malkin includes a fun fact in her article. She writes:...


Comments: 2

Sen Sessions explains Obamatrade in key Senate Speech -- I was published in the American Thinker blog
Howard Richman, 5/24/2015

I closely followed the Senate debates on Trade Promotion Authority (Fast Track), and afterwards posted an American Thinker blog piece that has received about 300 comments, almost all positive. I began:

Senator Sessions’s floor speech against Obamatrade on Friday could go down as one of the most important Senate speeches ever.  Already it is getting rave reviews:

  • Rush Limbaugh hailed it (Odds are Obamatrade screws America): “Jeff Sessions had a massive op-ed piece and floor speech in the Senate about this.”
  • Michelle Malkin gushed: “I wish that Sen. Jeff Sessions would run for president, because I would sign up in a heartbeat.”

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon set the stage for Sessions’s speech by lauding Obamatrade as “the most progressive trade policy in our country’s history” because it regulates much more than just trade:

If you want to read the rest, go to:


Comments: 0

U.S. Trade Agreements Have Been an Economic Disaster for American Workers
Raymond Richman, 5/21/2015

In 1947, the U.S. began negotiations to seek an international General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). There were eight rounds of negotiation from 1947 to 1994. The Tokyo round which began in 1973 and lasted for more than six years was attended by 102 nations. The last round began in Uruguay in September, 1986 and 123 nations participated and ended with the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. GATT marked the beginning of the end of the USA as the world’s leading industrial power.

GATT was followed by the granting of “most favored nation” status to China in 2000. In a 2012 article by Justin R. Pierce, a Federal Reserve Board researcher, and Yale economist Peter K. Schott, found a link between the sharp drop in U.S. manufacturing employment after 2001 and the elimination of trade policy uncertainty resulting from the U.S. granting of permanent normal trade relations to China.

When one examines the history of the US trade balance, it appears that until the end of the Tokyo round which lasted from 1973 to 1979, the US ran small trade surpluses with the rest of the world. The US trade surplus in 1981 was $3.1 billion. In 1983, the US experienced a trade deficit of $35.1 billion. By the end of the Uruguay round, 1983-1994, and the creation of the WTO in 1995,.the U.S. trade deficit had grown to $105.3 billion.



Comments: 0

Tomorrow's vote on Portman-Stebanow currency manipulation amendment shaping up as the key Senate vote on Fast Track
Howard Richman, 5/19/2015

Tomorrow's vote on the Portman-Stebanow amendment to Fast Track is shaping up as the only significant amendment that could pass. It would direct the U.S. Trade negotiator to include prohibitions against currency manipulation in the trade treaties that Obama negotiates. The Hill reports:...


Comments: 0

This Amendment would Preserve U.S. Sovereignty from Fast Track
Howard Richman, 5/18/2015

This week, the U.S. Senate will be considering up to 100 amendments to the Fast Track bill, which is expected to pass the Senate on Friday. Senator Elizabeth Warren and twelve other Democratic senators are sponsoring what could be the key amendment (pdf) for preserving U.S. sovereignty. Here is the text:

At the end of section 106(b), add the following:

(7) FOR AGREEMENTS THAT THREATEN UNITED STATES SOVEREIGNTY.—The trade authorities procedures shall not apply to an implementing bill submitted with respect to a trade agreement or trade agreements entered into under section 103(b) if such agreement or agreements, the implementing bill, or any statement of administrative action described in subsection (a)(1)(E)(ii) proposed to implement such agreement or agreements, includes investor-state dispute settlement.

At issue are the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions that are in Obama-type trade agreements. If any existing U.S. law or regulation violates the agreement, foreign businesses can sue the U.S. government for monetary damages. Through billion dollar fines, the dispute arbitrators can force Congress to change any U.S. law that differs from the trade pact. 

Like Senator Warren, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions wants to preserve U.S. sovereignty. On May 12 he issued a Critical Alert in which he wrote:...


Comments: 0

Fast Tracking the End of U.S. Sovereignty
Howard Richman, 5/17/2015

Now President Obama is selling Obamatrade and has come up with a new lie. On May 8, 2015, he told an audience in Beaverton Oregon:

No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.  This agreement would make sure our companies aren’t discriminated against in other countries. 

But Congress’ think tank has found that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the first of the trade agreements that Obama is negotiating, would indeed change U.S. laws. Senator Jeff Sessions reports:

[A]s the Congressional Research Service explains, the fast-tracked deal “would supersede existing U.S. law” and result in the U.S. being “bound by international law,” arbitrated by a global tribunal.

What is President Obama negotiating into TPP? The following all appear to be likely:...


Comments: 0

Jeff Sessions May 12 alert about FastTrack
Howard Richman, 5/15/2015

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama definitely gets it. His May 12 critical alert is excellent. Here's how he begins:...


Comments: 0

Solving the Capital Gains Riddle
Raymond Richman, 5/14/2015

Under the U.S. personal and corporate income tax codes, realized capital gains and losses are considered income. However, when calculating national income, capital gains and losses are excluded. Why the difference in treatment? No serious economist would argue that changes in the value of assets during a period should be added in calculating the national income for that period. Nor even that realized capital gains and losses should be added in calculating national income. Yet most appear to believe that realized capital gains at least should be counted as income for purposes of personal and corporate income taxation. Some argue that to exclude realized capital gains would be unfair to taxpayers whose income comes from other sources. In this view, even unrealized capital gains (referred to in the economic literature as accrued capital gains) are income but need to be excluded for administrative reasons, i.e., one should not be forced to sell some of his capital to pay the tax liability. Herein we argue that accrued capital gains are not income, that realized capital gains are income if they are consumed but not income if they are re-invested.

As distinguished an economist as the late Herbert Stein, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, "Don't Cry for Capital Gains Taxpayers" (WSJ, July 5, 1995), wrote:

      Because of the value of time, the tax on capital gains is lower than it seems--and lower than the tax       on many other [sic!] kinds of capital income. That is due to the deferral of the tax on the gain from         the time the gain accrues to the time the gain is realized by sale or exchange.

When he writes that an accrued gain is a form of capital income, he is confusing capital and income.



Comments: 0

Cruz files amendment to prevent Fast Track from changing federal immigration law
Howard Richman, 5/13/2015

When Fast-Track is voted upon, Senator Ted Cruz plans to propose an amendment that would prevent Obama from using Fast-Track power to change federal immigration law. A Texas newspaper reports:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today filed an amendment to the Trade Act of 2015 to lock in assurances that this legislation cannot be used to change federal immigration law.

“The Obama Administration has repeatedly assured Members of Congress that there is nothing in the Trade Act of 2015 that would allow the President to unilaterally make changes to federal immigration laws,” said Sen. Cruz. “I agree, and we should put it in writing and make it binding law. I am a strong supporter of free trade, but I cannot support legislation that would allow the President to once again circumvent Congress to enact his own immigration laws. Since the Obama Administration has emphatically argued that TPA [i.e. Fast Track] will not affect immigration, it should support this amendment, which makes that promise explicit.”

The amendment states that nothing in the Trade Act of 2015 or in any trade agreement subject to the Act “shall alter or affect any law, regulation, or policy relating to immigration.”...



Comments: 1

Fast Tracking an International EPA -- we were published in the American Thinker today
Howard Richman, 5/13/2015

After documenting that the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty (TPP) would create a new level of international environmental regulation enforced by a private court system, we point out that Balanced Trade is a much better alternative:

Balanced Trade - The Alternative That Works

Instead of creating a new tangle of international environmental regulations, there is a simple and principled way for the United States to structure its trade policy, one that is founded on the principle of reciprocity. If we require balanced trade in our trade agreements, we don’t have to regulate the practices of our trading partners.

Congress could easily balance trade without any trade agreements whatsoever, simply by enacting the Scaled Tariff, a single country variable tariff which is applied to each trade-surplus trading partner proportionately to the trade surplus it runs with the United States. As we show in our 2014 book Balanced Trade this approach complies with current international trade law.

With balanced trade, environmental regulations can be kept local. When a trading partner permits massive pollution in order to subsidize exports, the trade balancing tariff will prevent them from undermining U.S. production -- they have to import more from us if they want to export more to us.

Follow the following link to read the rest:


Comments: 0

American-producer New Balance wins sports shoe contest, as Elizabeth Warren stops Fast Track in Senate on Procedural Vote
Howard Richman, 5/12/2015

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts gets credit for this one. She led the Democratic Senators in a rebellion. Previously, they had backed everything that Obama had sent down the pike. All but one of the Democrats voted against the bill.

One of the issues was the sports shoe contest. The Bangor Daily News explains:

Massachusetts-bases shoe manufacturer New Balance, which has manufacturing plants in Maine, has said the trade deal’s passage could cause it to cut back its domestic manufacturing. Shoe giant Nike is among those lobbying for removing tariffs on shoe imports from Vietnam.

New Balance officials have said removing the tariffs would make it difficult to compete and could jeopardize 900 jobs at its Maine plants in Norridgewock, Skowhegan and Norway.

Meanwhile, Senator McConnell was reluctant to compromise with Democrats on the procedural vote, possibly because he would be losing his own Senators on the votes to follow. If he had continued, five had already announced that they were planning to oppose Fast-Track, including Mike Lee two days ago and Rand Paul today. And others were wavering including Sen. Collins of Maine, who was careful to point out in her comments afterward that her vote did not mean that she favored Fast Track:...


Comments: 0

CNN quickly cuts away from Japanese leader saying that Fast-Track will enable free flow of people
Howard Richman, 5/11/2015

At his April 28 Press Conference with Obama, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan confirmed that the Trans Pacific Partnership, the secret treaty that he is negotiating with Obama, is designed to enable the free flow of people among the 12 participating countries (which include both Mexico and the United States). You can watch this statement at the 47:06 mark. He says (according to the simultaneous translation):

"First of all on TPP, this is not something that we create out of consciousness about China. The economic growth of the region will be a positive and create opportunities for Japan, the United States, and the world. The TPP is such that to the eyes of many countries, it has to become a model.

It should be a model for China in that it's an ambitious attempt to create a new economic sphere in which people goods and money will flow freely within the Asia-Pacific region....

On these points we see completely eye-to-eye between President Obama and myself. 

Watch this humorous YouTube video from Redacted Tonight to see CNN instantly cutting away before its viewers could hear Abe's statement:


Comments: 0

The amendment to FastTrack that could save America
Howard Richman, 5/11/2015

Tomorrow, the Senate will start voting on whether or not to give President Obama Fast-Track power (Trade Promotion Authority). As my father, son and I noted in a commentary last week (Fast Tracking America's Economic Destruction), the Trans Pacific Partnership will give our treaty partners permission to manipulate exchange rates.

Even worse, the court system in TPA would make it impossible for the United States to ever combat currency manipulation because, if the United States were to promulgate tariffs against a currency-manipulating treaty country, businesses exporting to the United States from that country could sue the U.S. government for billions of dollars of damages in TPP's private court system. We wrote:

The Worst Thing about Fast Track

The worst aspect of Fast Track is not that it would permit the currency manipulations that tilt the playing field against American workers. It would set up a private court system that could render billions of dollars of judgment against the United States government should a future president decide to balance its trade with the currency-manipulating countries through tariffs.

In contrast, WTO rules include a provision that lets trade deficit countries impose trade-balancing tariffs. President Nixon took advantage of that provision when he imposed an across-the-board 10% tariff in August 1971, which quickly forced changes that brought U.S. trade into balance by 1973. The United States could take advantage of this WTO provision today. Doing so would give the U.S. more factories, more R&D, and more economic growth.

But the new private court system changes everything. It ensures that no future president can ever solve America’s trade deficits.

Here is the text of the simple amendment that would give future presidents the ability to balance trade. It should be added to all trade treaties that are negotiated by the U.S. government:...


Comments: 0

Globalization and Free trade Agreements Set the U.S. on the Road .to Decline
Raymond Richman, 5/8/2015

George Washington in his farewell address urged the US to avoid foreign entanglements. How right he was. US foreign entanglements began with a vengeance under Pres. Franklin D Roosevelt beginning with the Bretton Woods agreements (1944) which created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.These agreements were negotiated by Harry Dexter White on behalf of the US. (White was later exposed as a Communist spy.)

Benn Steil (senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and founding editor of International Finance) in his book The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order (Council on Foreign Relations, Princeton University Press, 2013), he discusses the creation at Bretton Woods of the World Bank and the IMF. He writes:

Together with the United Nations, they marked the beginning of Post WWII's march toward global government and simultaneously the march toward state capitalism, a political mixture of a powerful state, socialist enterprises, and state-dominated private capitalist enterprises. Mussolini, a former Communist, and Hitler, a national socialist, were the first world leaders to recognize the power of the new economic system, state capitalism. Both freed themselves from the ideology of Marxism and both recognized how a socialist state could dominate private enterprises and bend their will to the service of the state....


Comments: 0

Donald Trump's radio ad on fast-track
Howard Richman, 5/7/2015


Comments: 0

Does trading away our future buy the US friends?
Jesse Richman, 5/7/2015

Writing on May 3 in the Washington Post, the often thoughtful and perceptive Robert J. Samuelson made a fall-back argument for the Trans Pacific Partnership: it's good politics, even if the economics are lousy.  The fall back is a weak position, however.  Is it truly good politics in the long run to pursue imbalanced trade policies that undermine U.S. power?

Samuelson notes that the economic benefits of the deal would be extremely modest: "Still, plausible economic gains from expanded trade seem modest. By 2025, the incomes of the 12 countries could increase by 0.9 percent, according to a revised estimate by a study for the Peterson Institute."  He appears to assume that these will be divided equally though if current patterns hold and U.S. trade deficits with partnership nations grow substantially, the benefits will likely not flow to the U.S. much at all.

But he argues that US trade policy isn't about economics: it's about politics.  "Still, the pursuit of political ends by economic means remains at the core of U.S. trade policy." ...


Comments: 0

Huckabee campaigning in Iowa: "The last time we fast-tracked something was Obamacare."
Howard Richman, 5/6/2015

Governor Huckabee has been campaigning in Iowa, making Fast Track one of his issues:

After answering a question about how he felt to return to Iowa, Huckabee was asked by NBC News reporter Kasie Hunt whether Congress should approve "fast track" trade authority.

"They should not," he said.

"That puts you to the left of Hillary Clinton," said Hunt.

"You know, I don't care where it puts me on the horizontal scale," said Huckabee. "I think about it on a vertical basis. If we do another trade deal that drives American wages lower, and that isn't monitored, and isn't secured to be completely fair in how it's administered, then that's not free trade. Free trade is about trade going both ways fairly, accurately. Fast track means that nobody's paying attention. The last time that we really fast-tracked something was Obamacare."

Dick Morris wrote today about Huckabee's strategy:...


Comments: 0

Dick Morris: Obama Could use Fast-Track to Require Climate Change Regulation
Howard Richman, 5/6/2015

In a May 4 commentary (GOP: Lost Its Soul or Just Its Mind?), Dick Morris warns that President Obama could use Fast Track power (to negotiate trade treaties without amendment) to require climate change regulation:

[I]n this era, a trade deal may not be just about trade. The administration could use the fast track authority to force through deals that are partly about commerce but that get into other areas such as immigration and climate change....

[E]nvironmental protections embodied in the agreement could be interpreted to require climate change regulation even in the absence of congressional authorization.

The administration is anxious to assure Congress that it has no such intentions, but we know that this president cannot be trusted to exercise restraint in using any power he has been granted.

And, once provisions for immigration and climate change are included in the treaty, they cannot be superseded or even modified by an act of Congress. The treaty provisions would have the force of the “law of the land” under our Constitution....


Comments: 1

Bobby Jindal opposes Fast-Track
Howard Richman, 5/5/2015

The Presidential candidates are reading the polls and listening to the voters. On May 1, Gov. Bobby Jindal said:

I’m for presidents in both parties having fast track authority on free trade agreements. But I am not for giving more authority to a president who ignores the Constitution, the separation of powers, and will of the American people. This particular President must not be given any more power to do anything else to harm this country. He cannot be trusted. That’s why Congress needs to find a way to maintain oversight of the Obama Administration – the current deal doesn’t do that.



Comments: 0

Michael Savage comes out against "Trade Treason"
Howard Richman, 5/5/2015

Talk show host Michael Savage came out against giving President Obama Fast-Track power. Click here to listen to his show. He begins talking about the trade deal at the 03:44 mark:

This is an astonishing story that I'm about to tell you. There's a trade deal that the traitor in the White House is trying to push right now with the help of the Republicans. They're all traitors. This deal is such a sell out for America that even Harry Reid opposes it, I swear to God. This is something you'll never believe in a million years.

"Reid Throws Brakes on Obama Trade Push" is the headline on FoxNews. My headline is a little different. "Trade Treason" is what I call it.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is jamming up President Obama's push for a new comprehensive trade deal, saying he'll try to block it until the Senate tackles other hot-button issues.

Now what this trade deal is, nobody really knows, but they kind of know. It's a sell out of the American worker by Obama and the Republicans. This is amazing. Think about what I'm saying to you. The Republicans and Obama want to give Asia a trade deal that will destroy us completely. And the only ones stopping it are the Democrats for reasons that are their own, probably because they have to go back to the workers in their communities and explain to them why they eroded the working man once again....



Comments: 1

Gov. Huckabee decries "unbalanced trade deals" in Presidential announcement speech
Howard Richman, 5/5/2015

You can listen to the following statement at the 9:44 mark:

We don't create good jobs for Americans by entering into unbalanced trade deals that forego Congressional scrutiny, and then looking the other way as the law is ignored so that we can import low wage labor, undercut American workers, and drive wages lower than the Dead Sea. That's unacceptable.

I would love to hear a candidate say that he would balance trade, since doing so would help restore America's economic health. This is close.


Comments: 3

Foreign corporations on the scaffold in China
Howard Richman, 5/5/2015

Vladimir Lenin reportedly said, "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." The Washington Post reported on April 24 (The Great Unraveling of Globalization) that American corporations are now on the scaffold in China:

[I]n February, China levied a record $975 million fine against U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm for violating the country’s antimonopoly regulations by offering tiered prices for technology licenses based on volume, a common practice in global industries. This penalty will cut Qualcomm’s 2015 earnings by as much as 58 cents a share, or 15 percent of its profits.

In the past year, as many as 30 multinationals were placed under investigation — some were penalized and others raided — by Chinese government authorities for any number of dubious infractions. Among those in the crosshairs: drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline (corruption), Apple (inadequate warranties), Microsoft (monopolistic practices), and Audi, BMW and Daimler-Benz (price gouging). No surprise, then, that more than half of multinationals responding to a survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China said that Chinese regulators “targeted” foreign firms and that laws and regulations favored domestic companies

We put this in context on pages 78 and 79 of our 2008 book, Trading Away Our Future:...


Comments: 0

Senator Jeff Sessions issues Critical Alert against Fast Track
Howard Richman, 5/4/2015

Senator Jeff Sessions was one of the Republicans heroes who voted in the Senate Finance Committee to include a prohibition against currency manipulation in the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty that President Obama is now negotiating with 11 Pacific Rim countries. Unfortunately, the amendment that he supported did not pass in committee.

As a result, President Obama was directed by the Senate Finance Committee to negotiate a treaty with 11 countries that would be "free trade" in name only. Our trading partners would be given implicit permission to manipulate exchange rates in order to give their products hidden subsidies and American products hidden tariffs.

But that was just a committee vote. The Senate as a whole has not voted to give Obama "Fast Track" power, called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), to negotiate trade treaties without the possibility of Congressional amendment. On Sunday night, Sessions issued a "Critical Alert," listing his Top Five Concerns with Trade Promotion Authority:...


Comments: 0

Fast Tracking America's Economic Destruction - We're published in today's American Thinker
Howard Richman, 5/3/2015

We're published in today's American Thinker. Here's a selection:

Supporters of fast track are selling it with the same lies that were used to sell previous bad deals.  In an April 22 commentary, Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Ted Cruz claimed that Fast Track would produce jobs by reducing America’s huge trade deficits.  They are wrong, as the history of previous trade agreements shows.  They wrote:

The American worker can compete with anybody, if given a fair chance.  If you add up all 20 countries that the U.S. has a trade agreement with, American manufacturers run a $50 billion trade surplus with them.  The problem is that not all countries have a trade agreement with the U.S.: American manufacturers run a $500 billion trade deficit with those nations.

Their $50-billion surplus number is deeply deceptive.   It involves selecting some goods exports and imports while excluding others.  A complete measure of the balance of trade for all goods indicates that the U.S. ran a deficit of 61.7 billion dollars in 2014 with our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners.

Even worse, our trade deficits with the FTA partners got worse after the free trade agreements were negotiated.  In the year prior to implementation of each FTA, our average deficit with each FTA partner was less than $0.8 billion.  By 2014, our average deficit with each FTA partner was over $3 billion....

To read the rest go to:


Comments: 0

  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Jan 2022
    Dec 2021
    Nov 2021
    Oct 2021
    Sep 2021
    May 2021
    Apr 2021
    Feb 2021
    Jan 2021
    Dec 2020
    Nov 2020
    Oct 2020
    Jul 2020
    Jun 2020
    May 2020
    Apr 2020
    Mar 2020
    Dec 2019
    Nov 2019
    Oct 2019
    Sep 2019
    Aug 2019
    Jun 2019
    May 2019
    Apr 2019
    Mar 2019
    Feb 2019
    Jan 2019
    Dec 2018
    Nov 2018
    Aug 2018
    Jul 2018
    Jun 2018
    May 2018
    Apr 2018
    Mar 2018
    Feb 2018
    Dec 2017
    Nov 2017
    Oct 2017
    Sep 2017
    Aug 2017
    Jul 2017
    Jun 2017
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015

    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Real Estate Taxation

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]