US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit

This is a discussion on Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit within the Economy forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Supposn Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi People become wealthy by making transactions. If you artificially discourage making those transactions then ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy

Economy Discuss economic policy and wallstreet

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2010, 01:40 PM
The Rabbi's Avatar
<<<Miss him yet?
Member #20947
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nashville
Posts: 37,997
Thanks: 8,147
Thanked 8,820 Times in 5,981 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote: Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi View Post
People become wealthy by making transactions. If you artificially discourage making those transactions then you discourage wealth.
In this case even though a trade imbalance is a negative, the cure would be worse than the disease.
Rabbi, there are agreement and contracts that have been deemed contrary to the public interest. Simply because you’re able to improve your financial condition by raising pigs near my home, or by leasing out a firetrap within your property or numerous other illegal agreements do not legally justify your taking such actions.

The justification of this proposal is that a trade deficit is ALWAYS and this proposal would NEVER be detrimental to a nation’s GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn
Are you honestly comparing commercial activity to life or health-endangering situations? Really?
You lose credibility here with each post.
__________________
Rabbi's Rule#1: No liberal can argue without posting a logical fallacy or a factual error within 2 posts.

Ron Paul? No. Join the RuPaul RuVolution! It's Fabulous!

"The only people that watch fox are sheep and the most ignorant among us." Black Label, in a thread based on his watching Fox.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2010, 03:19 PM
Registered User
Member #20145
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 769
Thanks: 10
Thanked 54 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 19
Supposn has disabled reputation
[QUOTE=The Rabbi;2153378Are you honestly comparing commercial activity to life or health-endangering situations? Really?
You lose credibility here with each post.[/QUOTE]

Rabbi, there are financial agreements and contracts that have been deemed contrary to the public interest. Deregulating and less than diligent enforcement of existing regulations has just recently severely harmed our nation’s financial economy has been responsible for global financial and economic fiascos.

Trade deficit is ALWAYS and this proposal would NEVER be detrimental to a nation’s GDP.

I lose credibility? There's a self serving remark.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2010, 03:42 PM
The Rabbi's Avatar
<<<Miss him yet?
Member #20947
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nashville
Posts: 37,997
Thanks: 8,147
Thanked 8,820 Times in 5,981 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
[quote=Supposn;2153931]
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi;2153378Are you honestly comparing commercial activity to life or health-endangering situations? Really?
You lose credibility here with each post.[/quote

Rabbi, there are financial agreements and contracts that have been deemed contrary to the public interest. Deregulating and less than diligent enforcement of existing regulations has just recently severely harmed our nation’s financial economy has been responsible for global financial and economic fiascos.

Trade deficit is ALWAYS and this proposal would NEVER be detrimental to a nation’s GDP.

I lose credibility? There's a self serving remark.

Respectfully, Supposn
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
When gov't can dictate who can sell what to whom on what terms we are in the gulag.
__________________
Rabbi's Rule#1: No liberal can argue without posting a logical fallacy or a factual error within 2 posts.

Ron Paul? No. Join the RuPaul RuVolution! It's Fabulous!

"The only people that watch fox are sheep and the most ignorant among us." Black Label, in a thread based on his watching Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2010, 06:30 PM
Registered User
Member #20145
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 769
Thanks: 10
Thanked 54 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 19
Supposn has disabled reputation
[QUOTE=The Rabbi;2154037Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
When gov't can dictate who can sell what to whom on what terms we are in the gulag.[/QUOTE]

This proposal recognizes that trade deficits are contrary to our economic interests. It requires Import Certificates be surrendered to cover the assessed value of goods entering the USA.

Exporters of USA goods are not mandated to do anything.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2010, 06:37 PM
Registered User
Member #20145
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 769
Thanks: 10
Thanked 54 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 19
Supposn has disabled reputation
[QUOTE=The Rabbi;2154037Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
When gov't can dictate who can sell what to whom on what terms we are in the gulag.[/QUOTE]

Rabbi, within Buffett’s concept, no government or any other organization, (foreign or domestic) are granted any discretion of policy. Assessing goods’ values are technical rather than policy decisions.

On the contrary if (as both Republican and Democratic presidents have complained), foreign nations have been manipulating the global currency market and/or preventing U.S. goods from competing within foreign markets, those efforts would inflict insignificant (if any) harm to USA’s economy. Foreign entities that attempt to undermine us would be doing themselves almost immediate harm.

Federal trade negotiators could no longer determine which of various and often conflicting USA factions, (including conflicting goals of U.S. government departments) to support or betray). They cannot negate the law.

The law would require Import Certificates be surrendered to cover the assessed value of goods entering the USA.

Exporters of USA goods are not mandated to do anything; they may choose to pay the fees in order to acquire (and profit from) transferable IMPORT Certificates. The fees are set with the advice of the CBO to cover all of the federal net assessment and administration expenses due to this trade policy,

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2010, 06:15 PM
sparky's Avatar
Registered User
Member #12980
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: paradise
Posts: 3,223
Thanks: 220
Thanked 472 Times in 377 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 115
sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman
Quote:
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
Didn't Alexander Hamilton , as sec of the treasury, detail this back when he held that office?

~S~
__________________
I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sparky For This Useful Post:
editec (12-02-2010)
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2010, 08:50 PM
Registered User
Member #21679
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,882
Thanks: 609
Thanked 577 Times in 480 Posts
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1345
william the wie could be on the Supreme Court william the wie could be on the Supreme Court
william the wie could be on the Supreme Court william the wie could be on the Supreme Court william the wie could be on the Supreme Court william the wie could be on the Supreme Court william the wie could be on the Supreme Court william the wie could be on the Supreme Court william the wie could be on the Supreme Court
No offense Buffet is a great investor and like his mentor Graham he has a lawyer partner to keep him from doing something financially brilliant and legally stupid with the firm's money. I bet he didn't run this idea by his lawyer partner Munger because it sure sounds legally stupid to me despite my having only two business law courses. Graham said all manner of sensible and nonsensical stuff to congress too without running it by Newman his legal partner. When somebody is making money hand over fist and wants to pontificate about something he knows nothing about so what? We all need to blow off steam sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2010, 12:37 AM
Registered User
Member #20145
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 769
Thanks: 10
Thanked 54 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 19
Supposn has disabled reputation
Legaly stupid?

William the wie, the U.S. Congress has on occasion passed bills that were found to be unconstitutional. I suppose that’s what you mean by legally stupid?

Refer to a short 171 topic entitled “USA’s Trade Agreements” within
www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com
None of the topics within this web site or the site
www.USA-Imports.Blogspot.Com
exceeds a single page length.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2010, 01:58 AM
The Rabbi's Avatar
<<<Miss him yet?
Member #20947
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nashville
Posts: 37,997
Thanks: 8,147
Thanked 8,820 Times in 5,981 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote: Originally Posted by sparky View Post
Quote:
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
Didn't Alexander Hamilton , as sec of the treasury, detail this back when he held that office?

~S~
No, he didn't.
Proposal fails.
Next topic.
__________________
Rabbi's Rule#1: No liberal can argue without posting a logical fallacy or a factual error within 2 posts.

Ron Paul? No. Join the RuPaul RuVolution! It's Fabulous!

"The only people that watch fox are sheep and the most ignorant among us." Black Label, in a thread based on his watching Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2010, 03:47 AM
Mr. Forgot-it-All
Member #11278
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maine
Posts: 41,052
Thanks: 14,915
Thanked 9,339 Times in 6,626 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3132
editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute
editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi View Post
About 52% of Americans voted for Obama. So the figure is largely meaningless. Additionally most people think:
1) Outsourcing is primarily responsible for loss of jobs
2) Protecting domestic industries will create jobs.

Both of these are demonstrably and patently false.
The proposal puts us back into the old mercantilism mindset, with every country trying to export more than it imports. It didnt work too well then either.
Fortunately this has no chance whatsoever of passing.
Nice word patently...it sounds so authoritative.

Now prove it that outsourcing isn't responsible for the decline in wages and jobs.

Go ahead, I want to see HOW you prove this.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2010, 03:48 AM
Mr. Forgot-it-All
Member #11278
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maine
Posts: 41,052
Thanks: 14,915
Thanked 9,339 Times in 6,626 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3132
editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute
editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute editec has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi View Post
People become wealthy by making transactions. If you artificially discourage making those transactions then you discourage wealth.
In this case even though a trade imbalance is a negative, the cure would be worse than the disease.

More assertions with absolutely no facts and not even any logic to support them.

You do understand the difference between a statement and an arugment supporting that statement, right?
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2010, 03:59 AM
Registered User
Member #20145
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 769
Thanks: 10
Thanked 54 Times in 53 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 19
Supposn has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi View Post
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
When gov't can dictate who can sell what to whom on what terms we are in the gulag.
Rabbi,Within our history:

It was it illegal to keep persons in bondage.
It was illegal to import or keep slaves.
It was illegal for Government Supported Entities to deal in loans that were not federally insured.

It became legal for Government Supported Entities to deal in loans that were not federally insured.
My hope is that it will again become illegal for Government Supported Entities to deal in loans that were not federally insured.

It was legal for any bank to act an investment bank.
It became illegal for saving banks and other Federally Insured banks to act as investment banks.
I look forward to it again be prohibited for federally insured banks from to act as an investment banks.
[Refer to U.S. Message Board economic board’s topic entitled “Regulation of the finance industry”].

It was legal to drive an uninsured car on public roads. Now there are state laws prohibiting it.
It was legal to sell alcoholic beverages. Then it was illegal, now it is regulated.
There once were few if any laws governing the regulation of consumer products, buildings or zoning.

If I had the time, I’d find many previously legal commercial act that have later been declared to be illegal.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2010, 04:51 AM
sparky's Avatar
Registered User
Member #12980
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: paradise
Posts: 3,223
Thanks: 220
Thanked 472 Times in 377 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 115
sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sparky View Post
Quote:
Please. Show me where an otherwise lawful transaction between private parties is going to be deemed "against the public interest".
Didn't Alexander Hamilton , as sec of the treasury, detail this back when he held that office?

~S~
No, he didn't.
Proposal fails.
Next topic.
i refer you to This Article which has Hamiltons 11 point manifesto

For over 200 years, Hamilton's policy made America the most powerful industrial nation in the world; now – after just 28 years of Reagonomics and Clinton/Rubinomics – we are the largest importer of other people's industry, and the most indebted nation in the world.

The entirety of Hamilton's paper is easily found on the web. The first third of it deals with Jefferson's objections to it (which Jefferson withdrew later in his life), as Jefferson favored America being an agricultural rather than an industrial power in 1791. Once you cut past that, though, Hamilton gets right to the rationale for, and the details of, his 11-point plan to turn America into an industrial power and build a strong manufacturing-based middle class. Ironically, his policies are exactly – EXACTLY – what Japan, South Korea, and China are doing today. And what we have ceased to do.



~S~
__________________
I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sparky For This Useful Post:
editec (12-02-2010)
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2010, 06:48 AM
The Rabbi's Avatar
<<<Miss him yet?
Member #20947
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nashville
Posts: 37,997
Thanks: 8,147
Thanked 8,820 Times in 5,981 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote: Originally Posted by editec View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi View Post
About 52% of Americans voted for Obama. So the figure is largely meaningless. Additionally most people think:
1) Outsourcing is primarily responsible for loss of jobs
2) Protecting domestic industries will create jobs.

Both of these are demonstrably and patently false.
The proposal puts us back into the old mercantilism mindset, with every country trying to export more than it imports. It didnt work too well then either.
Fortunately this has no chance whatsoever of passing.
Nice word patently...it sounds so authoritative.

Now prove it that outsourcing isn't responsible for the decline in wages and jobs.

Go ahead, I want to see HOW you prove this.
I am not here to do your research for you.
However, start here.
Myths and Realities: The False Crisis of Outsourcing | The Heritage Foundation
__________________
Rabbi's Rule#1: No liberal can argue without posting a logical fallacy or a factual error within 2 posts.

Ron Paul? No. Join the RuPaul RuVolution! It's Fabulous!

"The only people that watch fox are sheep and the most ignorant among us." Black Label, in a thread based on his watching Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2010, 03:32 AM
sparky's Avatar
Registered User
Member #12980
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: paradise
Posts: 3,223
Thanks: 220
Thanked 472 Times in 377 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 115
sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman sparky could be a Congressman
This is truely the weakest argument i've seen for free trade yet, not to mention 6 yrs old.....how many biz's have gone under or offshored since then?

seeing as we are somewhere in the area of a 70% service , as opposed to production GDP, i think we can regulate the HF to the trickle down contingent


Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.
An underlying myth is that economic freedom is a "race to the bottom" in which American workers must accept lower wages and fewer benefits in order to compete with low-cost labor in other countries.

Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.

Countries that embrace economic freedom-including freedom of trade, labor, and capital-experience stronger economic growth than those that seek to thwart the market through regulatory hurdles and policy restrictions. The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom confirms a strong, positive relationship between economic freedom and per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Moreover, average GDP growth rates increase as a country's economic freedom score improves, as measured in the Index.[14]

In other words, policies that are antithetical to economic freedom, including trying to protect the jobs of a few workers from outsourcing, will inevitably retard economic growth and lead to fewer jobs in the future. Trade freedom is one aspect of economic freedom, of course, and the U.S. Trade Representative confirms that the benefits of free trade are staggering:

Last year alone, hidden import taxes cost American consumers $18 billion. Duty-free trade would eliminate these hidden costs and lower prices for consumers. While this proposal would offer substantial benefits to all Americans, it would particularly help low-income families. A recent study by the Progressive Policy Institute found that cutting U.S. import taxes especially benefits single-parent, low-income families, who typically pay a higher proportion of their income on import taxes than other households. A University of Michigan study found that the U.S. economy would expand by $95 billion as a result of tariff-free trade-contributing to job-creation and higher wages.[15]

A case in point is America's experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been a net boon for the U.S. economy and American workers. Employment in the U.S. increased by 20 million jobs between 1993 and 2000. In the 10 years since NAFTA's enactment, real hourly compensation has increased by 14.7 percent, including a 14.4 percent increase in manufacturing wages.[16] Trade among the three NAFTA nations has more than doubled, helping to lower prices for all consumers.

While free trade can cause localized pain for a few workers, the overall gains are overwhelming. The myth of lower wages due to increased trade is wrong on theory and wrong on the facts.




~S~
__________________
I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.