Annual Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's economies.

[Supposn]

Annual Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's economies.





Except when a nation's workers are effectively experiencing “fullemployment”, annual trade deficits are otherwise ALWAYS net detrimental to families dependent upon wages, and entities sensitiveto the financial conditions of that substantial segment of thenation's population.

Rather than pure “free trade”, I'm among those who are aware of andadvocate USA adopt the “Import Certificates” policy as described within the link, Import certificates – Wikipedia .

I searched via the question, “What are the medium and long-term consequences of a nation's chronic annual trade deficits"? Microsoft Bing's artificial intelligence responded as follows:

Excerpted from: Trade Deficit: Definition, Causes, and Effects (thebalancemoney.com)
“The Bottom Line
A nation with a trade deficit spends more on imports than it makes on its exports. In the short run, a negative balance of trade curbs inflation. But over time, a substantial trade deficit weakens domestic industries and decreases job opportunities. A huge reliance on imports also leaves a country vulnerable to economic downturns. Currency devaluations, for example, make imports more costly. This situation stimulates inflation. [Refer to [5 & 6]”

Excerpted from #5 :
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trad...in-bop-3305898
"The real reason [for the US trade deficits] is that Americans are spending more than they produce. …”.
and#6: https://www2.nber.org/feldstein/proj...apr252017.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, they aren't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Annual Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's economies.

Is it detrimental for you to have a trade deficit with your local grocery store?

I have a huge trade deficit with them, I give them a lot of money and they just give me stuff in return.

 

[Supposn]

Is it detrimental for you to have a trade deficit with your local grocery store?

I have a huge trade deficit with them, I give them a lot of money and they just give me stuff in return.

Golfing Gator, your grocery transactions do not determine your nation's international annual balances of trade.

Unless trade deficit nations' workers are effectively “fully” employed, (rather than under-employed or unemployed), those nations' negative balances of international trade to some extent effectively reduced their numbers of jobs and wages.

I offer an alternative analogy: A wealthy man can afford to light his cigars with $100 or $1,000 bills throughout his entire life. Doing so wouldn't contribute to sustaining or increasing his wealth. USA is a comparatively wealthy nation, but that's not a reason to squander our wealth. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Golfing Gator, your grocery transactions do not determine your nation's international annual balances of trade.

Unless trade deficit nations' workers are effectively “fully” employed, (rather than under-employed or unemployed), those nations' negative balances of international trade to some extent effectively reduced their numbers of jobs and wages.

I offer an alternative analogy: A wealthy man can afford to light his cigars with $100 or $1,000 bills throughout his entire life. Doing so wouldn't contribute to sustaining or increasing his wealth. USA is a comparatively wealthy nation, but that's not a reason to squander our wealth. Respectfully, Supposn

We are not squandering it, we are paying other countries to do things for us, just like I pay someone to mow my lawn because I just don't like doing so.

The thing to remember about a "nation's international annual balances of trade", it is not really the nation's trade balance, it is the individual citizens of said nation.

 

[Supposn]

We are not squandering it, we are paying other countries to do things for us, just like I pay someone to mow my lawn because I just don't like doing so.
The thing to remember about a "nation's international annual balances of trade", it is not really the nation's trade balance, it is the individual citizens of said nation.

Golfing Gator, to determine what's meant by “we”, I consider the context within which that pronoun occurred. I suppose we all similarly do so?
When my post discussed “squandering” of wealth by lighting cigars with$100 bills, I was referring to individual persons and their individual wealth.
When I'm discussing annual trade deficit nations' squandering of wealth, I'm referring to the consequential lesser numbers of jobs and their wages that were consequentially due to their nation's annual trade deficits.

If ANY TYPES of groups or individual's annual gross expenditures exceed their revenues, that could be described as their annual budget deficits. It's generally supposed that national government's annual budget deficits do detrimentally affect their nation's economies which in turn are likely to have some indirect detrimental effect upon their nation's numbers of jobs and their wages.
But a nation's annual balance of international trade certainly has a more direct affect upon their nation's numbers of jobs and their wages. Annual surplus trade nations production was less than their nations entire annual consumption, (including their investments for future production) of goods and services.

Although USA's chronic great annual trade deficits within terms of shorter durations do somewhat drag upon the U.S. dollar's rate of inflation, it's affect upon medium and longer-term durations actually greater reduces our U.S. dollars' purchasing powers.
Even among economists not opposed to trade deficits, there are extremely few, (if any) credible economists denying annual trade deficits' detrimental effects upon their nation's numbers of jobs and their wages.

You do not have an international trade deficit, or anything that's usually described as a “trade deficit” between yourself and your grocer. You maybe annually balancing your expenditures and incomes, or your expenditures may be less, or they may exceed your annual incomes.

Rather than pure “free trade”, I'm among those who are aware of and advocate USA adopting the “Import Certificates” policy as described within the link, Importcertificates – Wikipedia
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Golfing Gator, to determine what's meant by “we”, I consider the context within which that pronoun occurred. I suppose we all similarly do so?
When my post discussed “squandering” of wealth by lighting cigars with$100 bills, I was referring to individual persons and their individual wealth.
When I'm discussing annual trade deficit nations' squandering of wealth, I'm referring to the consequential lesser numbers of jobs and their wages that were consequentially due to their nation's annual trade deficits.

If ANY TYPES of groups or individual's annual gross expenditures exceed their revenues, that could be described as their annual budget deficits. It's generally supposed that national government's annual budget deficits do detrimentally affect their nation's economies which in turn are likely to have some indirect detrimental effect upon their nation's numbers of jobs and their wages.
But a nation's annual balance of international trade certainly has a more direct affect upon their nation's numbers of jobs and their wages. Annual surplus trade nations production was less than their nations entire annual consumption, (including their investments for future production) of goods and services.

Although USA's chronic great annual trade deficits within terms of shorter durations do somewhat drag upon the U.S. dollar's rate of inflation, it's affect upon medium and longer-term durations actually greater reduces our U.S. dollars' purchasing powers.
Even among economists not opposed to trade deficits, there are extremely few, (if any) credible economists denying annual trade deficits' detrimental effects upon their nation's numbers of jobs and their wages.

You do not have an international trade deficit, or anything that's usually described as a “trade deficit” between yourself and your grocer. You maybe annually balancing your expenditures and incomes, or your expenditures may be less, or they may exceed your annual incomes.

Rather than pure “free trade”, I'm among those who are aware of and advocate USA adopting the “Import Certificates” policy as described within the link, Importcertificates – Wikipedia
Respectfully, Supposn

How do I change US GDP
when I spend this......

to buy this......

 

[Supposn]

How do I change US GDP
when I spend this......

to buy this......

ToddsterPatriot, if your $100 had been spent for a U.S. Beer, it would have theoretically required additional investment to eventually restock a domestic case of beer that was delivered to you; (i.e. USA's GDP would have been increased. By $100).
All benefits of production, (i.e. the jobs. wages, enterprise's net incomes and government's tax revenues associated with producing and delivering that beer to you, would all have been earned by USA workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities.

Instead, that case of beer will be restocked by an additional investment. A substantial portion of that investment will be the cost of purchasing and importing that beer to the USA. All benefits of production through setting that case down on a USA entry dock will have been earned by the foreign workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, if your $100 had been spent for a U.S. Beer, it would have theoretically required additional investment to eventually restock a domestic case of beer that was delivered to you; (i.e. USA's GDP would have been increased. By $100).
All benefits of production, (i.e. the jobs. wages, enterprise's net incomes and government's tax revenues associated with producing and delivering that beer to you, would all have been earned by USA workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities.

Instead, that case of beer will be restocked by an additional investment. A substantial portion of that investment will be the cost of purchasing and importing that beer to the USA. All benefits of production through setting that case down on a USA entry dock will have been earned by the foreign workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities. Respectfully, Supposn

Now show the impact on US GDP.

Use one of the common formulas.

 

[Supposn]

Now show the impact on US GDP.

Use one of the common formulas.

ToddsterPatriot,if your $100 had been spent for a U.S. Beer, it would have theoretically required additional investment to eventually restock a domestic case of beer that was delivered to you; (i.e. USA's GDP would have been increased. By $100).
Allbenefits of production, (i.e. the jobs. wages, enterprise's net incomes and government's tax revenues associated with producing anddelivering that beer to you, would all have been earned by USA workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities.

Instead, that case of beer will be restocked by an additional investment. A substantial portion of that investment will be the cost of purchasing and importing that beer to the USA. All benefits of production through setting that case down on a USA entry dock will have been earned by the foreign workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities. Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, I refuse to speculate if you're genuinely stupid or disingenuously pretending to be stupid. I provided you with a complete answer to your question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, I refuse to speculate if you're genuinely stupid or disingenuously pretending to be stupid. I provided you with a complete answer to your question.

You refuse to do the math.

Is your cowardice detrimental to our nation's economy?

Try this formula.

Don't be afraid.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, I refuse to speculate if you're genuinely stupid or disingenuously pretending to be stupid. I provided you with a complete answer to your question.

ToddsterPatriot,if your $100 had been spent for a U.S. Beer, it would havetheoretically required additional investment to eventually restock adomestic case of beer that was delivered to you; (i.e.USA's GDP would have been increased. By $100).
Allbenefits of production, (i.e. the jobs. wages, enterprise's netincomes and government's tax revenues associated with producing anddelivering that beer to you, would all have been earned by USAworkers, enterprises, and tax collection entities.

Instead,that case of beer will be restocked by an additional investment. Asubstantial portion of that investment will be the cost of purchasingand importing that beer to the USA. All benefits of productionthrough setting that case down on a USA entry dock will have beenearned by the foreign workers, enterprises, and tax collectionentities. Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot,refuse to speculate if you're genuinely stupid or disingenuouslypretending to be stupid. I provided you with a complete answer toyour question.

Now show the impact on US GDP.

Use one of the common formulas.

Disingenuousor stupid Toddster Patriot, if your $100 had been spent for a U.S. Beer, it would have theoretically required additional investment to eventually restock a domestic case of beer that was delivered to you; (i.e. USA's GDP would have been increased. By $100). ...

Instead, that case of beer will be restocked by an additional investment. A substantial portion of that investment will be the cost of purchasing and importing that beer to the USA. All benefits of production through setting that case down on a USA entry dock will have been earned by the foreign workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities. Respectfully, Supposn

Irefuse to speculate if you're genuinely stupid or disingenuously pretending to be stupid. I've again provided you with a complete answer to your question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Irefuse to speculate if you're genuinely stupid or disingenuously pretending to be stupid. I've again provided you with a complete answer to your question.

Toddster Patriot, if your $100 had been spent for a U.S. Beer, it would have theoretically required additional investment to eventually restock a domestic case of beer that was delivered to you; (i.e. USA's GDP would have been increased. By $100). ...

You're claiming my beer import harms US GDP.
My "not increasing" US GDP isn't harm.

Don't be a coward.

Plug my beer activity into a GDP formula and post the results.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, OK; we've gone past some nonsense.
You needn't agree with, , but you acknowledged my contending your purchasing an imported rather than a domestic product denies your nation of some (infinitely tiny additional increase of your nation's annual GDP.
I apologize to you or anyone else if I ever presumed to to direct, (rather than suggest) how others should spend their wealth. I contended, due to their nations' annual balances of trade, surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their individual nation's annual GDP.

I prefer and advocate both minimum interference of individual's choices due to their government's policies, and government policies that will promote behaviors of advantages, and/or reduce behaviors of disadvantage to the that government's nation. These are not contradictions, but rather limitations or boundaries beyond which I prefer my government not cross over.
That's why I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the “Import Certificates” policy as described within the link,
Importcertificates – Wikipedia
Respectfully,Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, OK; we've gone past some nonsense.
You needn't agree with, , but you acknowledged my contending your purchasing an imported rather than a domestic product denies your nation of some (infinitely tiny additional increase of your nation's annual GDP.
I apologize to you or anyone else if I ever presumed to to direct, (rather than suggest) how others should spend their wealth. I contended, due to their nations' annual balances of trade, surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their individual nation's annual GDP.

I prefer and advocate both minimum interference of individual's choices due to their government's policies, and government policies that will promote behaviors of advantages, and/or reduce behaviors of disadvantage to the that government's nation. These are not contradictions, but rather limitations or boundaries beyond which I prefer my government not cross over.
That's why I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the “Import Certificates” policy as described within the link,
Importcertificates – Wikipedia
Respectfully,Supposn

I contended, due to their nations' annual balances of trade, surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their individual nation's annual GDP.

Yes, you contended that.
Now, use a GDP formula and show that.

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports

I bought $100 of beer from Germany. I drank it.
How did that impact US GDP?
Let me know if you need a hint.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot,refuse to speculate if you're genuinely stupid or disingenuously pretending to be stupid. I provided you with a complete answer to your question.
ToddsterPatriot, if your $100 had been spent for a U.S. Beer, it would have theoretically required additional investment to eventually restock a domestic case of beer that was delivered to you; (i.e. USA's GDP would have been increased. By $100).
All benefits of production, (i.e. the jobs. wages, enterprise's net incomes and government's tax revenues associated with producing and delivering that beer to you, would all have been earned by USA workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities.

Instead, that case of beer will be restocked by an additional investment. A substantial portion of that investment will be the cost of purchasing and importing that beer to the USA. All benefits of production through setting that case down on a USA entry dock will have been earned by the foreign workers, enterprises, and tax collection entities. ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I bought $100 of beer from Germany. I drank it.

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports

I added $100 to consumption. I subtracted $100 to net exports.

My portion of the trade deficit with Germany had no effect on US GDP.

I'll drink to that!!!

 

[Supposn]

I bought $100 of beer from Germany. I drank it.

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports

I added $100 to consumption. I subtracted $100 to net exports.

My portion of the trade deficit with Germany had no effect on US GDP.

I'll drink to that!!!

ToddsterPatriot,when a case of beer was imported into the USA, USA's GDP was reduced. When an additional case is imported to restock the case you drank, USA's GDP is further reduced. Apparently drinking that beer befuddled your mind. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, when a case of beer was imported into the USA, USA's GDP was reduced.

You don't even understand the GDP formula. That's funny.