Are Countries With Trade Surpluses Economically Stronger?

[Supposn]

from: Are Countries With Trade Surpluses Economically Stronger?

MERRILL MATTHEWS 6:50 PM ET

Few concepts in economics are more misunderstood than the balance of trade. People seem to assume that a trade deficit is bad and a trade surplus is good, just as budget deficits — or big ones — are bad while budget surpluses are good. No president has made more of this issue than Donald Trump, who just signed an executive order asking for an assessment of "the major causes of the trade deficit."

In his February address to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Trump reiterated, "Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars." Actually, it was about $750 billion...


...The president seems to imply that countries with a trade surplus are economically stronger than countries with a trade deficit. But as the table below shows, no discernible pattern emerges.

Of the 10 largest economies with trade surpluses in 2015, only two had much stronger GDP growth than the U.S.​

Epat_Pnama, exerpted from
Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.

It’s not contended that trade balances alone consequential determined their nation’s increase or decrease of their annual GDPs; but they always contributed or reduced their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.

Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s GDP. Thus, for the years the nation experienced annual trade deficits, their GDP was less than otherwise); (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced annual trade deficits). Unless a nation is blessed with reasonably full employment, reduction of GDP is detrimental to numbers of jobs and affects wage scales.

Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s GDP.​

so do you want to end the liberal policies that cause our trade deficits????

 

[Supposn]

... The Chinese had the money to buy the Waldorf because we buy their stuff and they don't buy our stuff A country that doesn't make stuff that others want to buy is declining.

EdwardBaiamonte, annual trade deficits are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation’s GDPs. Uless the nation’s enjoying full employment, they’re numbers of jobs are reflected upon and in turn reflect upon the GDPs that have been dragged upon by the annual trade deficits.

It’s reasonable to assume the purchase of investments such as a hotel are due to the purchasers’ expectations for their investment’s safety and rate of return. Investors’ choice of their investments’ locations are generally not determined by national trade balances.

It’s true that annual trade deficits are to some extent detrimental to the exchange rate of their nation’s currency and thus to some extent reducing the prices of their nation’s properties. That same reduction of currency value also reduces the purchasing powers of all payments wages, (such as wages and profits) made or received in their nation’s currencies.

USA purchasers of imports benefit from the cheaper prices of lower wage nation’s exports, but they do not compensate for trade deficits effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs. that’s why trade deficits are particularly net detrimental to wage earners and their families.

But you continue disregarding those of us that make such contentions. We all (as you’ve posted), must be liberal Nazi, communists, lacking IQs, and understanding of economics.

Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

USA purchasers of imports benefit from the cheaper prices of lower wage nation’s exports, but they do not compensate for trade deficits effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.

wrong, if I save $1.00 by buying made in China that's one dollar the Chinese have to spend in America so spending and jobs in America stay the same. Notice how I can crush you with 1% of the words you use in your rambling incoherent rants.

 

[Supposn]

USA purchasers of imports benefit from the cheaper prices of lower wage nation’s exports, but they do not compensate for trade deficits effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.

wrong, if I save $1.00 by buying made in China that's one dollar the Chinese have to spend in America so spending and jobs in America stay the same. Notice how I can crush you with 1% of the words you use in your rambling incoherent rants.

EdwardBaiamonte, if foreign nations were spending their U.S. dollars for our goods, USA wouldn’t have chronic annual trade deficits.

When foreign entities purchase portions of our existing enterprises or grant loans to USA, they receive commitment of our entities future profits or those entities serving their debts to the foreign loaners. I do not believe (as others do), that this itself is of economic detriment to our nation; but certainly, annual trade deficits themselves are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

But you ignore this.
I wish you well, Supposn

 

[Indeependent]

USA purchasers of imports benefit from the cheaper prices of lower wage nation’s exports, but they do not compensate for trade deficits effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.

wrong, if I save $1.00 by buying made in China that's one dollar the Chinese have to spend in America so spending and jobs in America stay the same. Notice how I can crush you with 1% of the words you use in your rambling incoherent rants.

EdwardBaiamonte, if foreign nations were spending their U.S. dollars for our goods, USA wouldn’t have chronic annual trade deficits.

When foreign entities purchase portions of our existing enterprises or grant loans to USA, they receive commitment of our entities future profits or those entities serving their debts to the foreign loaners. I do not believe (as others do), that this itself is of economic detriment to our nation; but certainly, annual trade deficits themselves are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

But you ignore this.
I wish you well, Supposn

EdwardBaiamonte is a parrot that can type.
I put it on Ignore over a year ago.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

EdwardBaiamonte, if foreign nations were spending their U.S. dollars for our goods, USA wouldn’t have chronic annual tradedeficit

Agreed!!!!!!! So?????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

USA purchasers of imports benefit from the cheaper prices of lower wage nation’s exports, but they do not compensate for trade deficits effects upon our GDP and numbers of jobs.

wrong, if I save $1.00 by buying made in China that's one dollar the Chinese have to spend in America so spending and jobs in America stay the same. Notice how I can crush you with 1% of the words you use in your rambling incoherent rants.

EdwardBaiamonte, if foreign nations were spending their U.S. dollars for our goods, USA wouldn’t have chronic annual trade deficits.

When foreign entities purchase portions of our existing enterprises or grant loans to USA, they receive commitment of our entities future profits or those entities serving their debts to the foreign loaners. I do not believe (as others do), that this itself is of economic detriment to our nation; but certainly, annual trade deficits themselves are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

But you ignore this.
I wish you well, Supposn

Ignore this what is this?? I agree that trade deficits are bad and the way to correct them is to make our goods more competitive Not to protect and cripple our industries and lead

the world in trade wars as you would prefer