How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Either ways, you get full consolidation into one last single player that defines everything. The government slows this down though doesn't stop it.

if you get this why don't we have it?? Instead we have 30 million corporations all fighting to survive by pleasing us more than the competition. Do you understand?

We do have full consolidation. Very few industries are transitionary, like the gaming industry. But soon that too will consolidate to just a few brands if hasn't already.

And corporations don't please customers. They please the government for marking out business turfs and protecting those for them.
 
The government slows this down though doesn't stop it.
anti trust laws stop it dead actually. 1+1=2

There is no anti trust law. The last anti trust law was the breaking up of Standard Oil, a 100 years ago.
so monopolies are free to form??

Meet President Trump's Pick to Head DoJ's Antitrust Division | Fortune ...
fortune.com/.../president-trump-justice-department-antitrust-division-makan-delrahim/
Mar 28, 2017 - A member of President Donald Trump's transition team, Makan Delrahim, will be nominated to head the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
 
And corporations don't please customers. .

so customers buy from corporations that displease them most and our standard of living is declining as prices go up quality goes down and new products aren't needed to please customers. See why we say a liberal will be stupid?
 
How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.

No it can't be managed by taxes. They always move to the tax haven countries, then even their profits will not come back to the US but to the benefit of a tax haven country. A mostly unemployed nation is not a good customer or market anyways.
I am not sure why you believe that. Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our Republic.
But who guides the hands of congress? Corporations and foreign currencies do.
Should we "stop hiring management from Hostess"?
 
Edward Baiamonte, trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. They are particularly net detrimental to employees and their families.

You advocate USA continue acquiescing to lower wage nations’ products price advantages over our products in markets within our borders, in order not to upset other nations. I disagree with your priorities.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven and would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Your mention of war is due to your lack of logic and your paranoiac delusions.

///////////////////////////////////

After USA’s Revolutionary War, we became among, (if not the most) liberal nation then existing.
As time passed, more nations have turned as we, (previously British colonies did), to be lesser autocratic or oligarchism.

Other nations’ titular heads may also be addressed as presidents or as monarchs, or prime-ministers; their legislative chambers may be described by titles other than “congress”; but the trend is for nations governments transforming to be bound to the limits of written constitutions; their leadership determined by democratic elections; (i.e. the historic trend of these last centuries has been for national governments evolving to be more liberal).

More liberal governments’ policy determining leaders are more generally selected by their citizens’ votes; they’re generally democratic republics (regardless of the government’s titular head’s title). Another characteristic of more liberal governments has been their citizens’ expectations and legal entitlements of rights.
[These rights are in a general manner referred to within the preamble of the United States Constitution, and more specifically within all levels of USA’s laws and regulations.]

The historic trend has also been for all the nation’s citizens and to some lesser extent to all others within the nation to be entitled to some explicitly stated considerations for their safety, education, health, and wellbeing.

Historic trends, (social behaviors, societies do not generally progress consistently with no interruptions or setbacks that are to a significant extent due to wealth’s' greater influence within governments. They're "on the wrong side of history”.
Now that I’m retired and have some time to respond to such posts; this post’s a public service.


I wish you well, Supposn

trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise

Bullshit.
No matter how many times you repeat your drivel.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven

Market driven would mean shrinking, not increasing government interference.

Then the US producers will disappear even faster.

In the case of no government, every producer moves out in one day, then pump back all their earnings into US banks from where it is immediately leveraged as foreign lending.

Why would less government interference cause producers to disappear faster?

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape. So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape.

Producers feel less need to move when there is no government red tape.

So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Please explain further.
you don't recognize, right wing fantasy?
 
The government slows this down though doesn't stop it.
anti trust laws stop it dead actually. 1+1=2

There is no anti trust law. The last anti trust law was the breaking up of Standard Oil, a 100 years ago.
so monopolies are free to form??

Meet President Trump's Pick to Head DoJ's Antitrust Division | Fortune ...
fortune.com/.../president-trump-justice-department-antitrust-division-makan-delrahim/
Mar 28, 2017 - A member of President Donald Trump's transition team, Makan Delrahim, will be nominated to head the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.

Yes, monopolies are free to form. And yes there is a doj antitrust division. Europe is not much better either, although comparing Europe with America will help you understand it, at least with the example of Microsoft a few decades ago.
 
And corporations don't please customers. .

so customers buy from corporations that displease them most and our standard of living is declining as prices go up quality goes down and new products aren't needed to please customers. See why we say a liberal will be stupid?

Quality of service per price is nose diving in every u.s. Industry, that is not a secret.
 
How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.

No it can't be managed by taxes. They always move to the tax haven countries, then even their profits will not come back to the US but to the benefit of a tax haven country. A mostly unemployed nation is not a good customer or market anyways.
I am not sure why you believe that. Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our Republic.
But who guides the hands of congress? Corporations and foreign currencies do.
Should we "stop hiring management from Hostess"?
???
 
trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise

Bullshit.
No matter how many times you repeat your drivel.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven

Market driven would mean shrinking, not increasing government interference.

Then the US producers will disappear even faster.

In the case of no government, every producer moves out in one day, then pump back all their earnings into US banks from where it is immediately leveraged as foreign lending.

Why would less government interference cause producers to disappear faster?

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape. So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape.

Producers feel less need to move when there is no government red tape.

So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Please explain further.
you don't recognize, right wing fantasy?
Fantasies are interesting. Right wing fantasies are interesting too. :)
 
Quality of service per price is nose diving in every u.s. Industry, that is not a secret.
its a stupid liberal lie which you cant prove!!. If true thanks to capitalism it would mean opportunity for new competition. and if true Iphones would be getting worse not better over time!!!
 
apples and oranges. I am only advocating for that one change to the tax code; not a "myriad of changes".

DanielPalos, I’m ONLY discussing and you’re disregarding precisely the ONLY one change of our tax regulations you’re advocating.

You're advocating a destination based income tax; a goal that I too share. It’s NOW being actively considered by Paul Ryan and other leading Republican members of the Congressional House.

I doubt that they can draft such a change that would not require excessive enforcement expenses, could to a reasonable extent be enforced, and would not further extend IRS’s intervention within our individual personal or enterprises’ privacies.
If it’s not enforceable, enacting such a change would be net detrimental to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Toddsterpatriot, I’m claiming enterprise currently are entitled to reduction from their federal taxable incomes due to their costs of importing goods or services into the USA; foreign labor is imbedded within those costs.
The “destination based tax” concept was drafted specifically to eliminate that tax reduction.
Respectfully, Supposn ...

...
Toddsterpatriot, I’m claiming enterprise currently are entitled to reduction from their federal taxable incomes due to their costs of importing goods or services into the USA; foreign labor is imbedded within those costs.

Businesses deduct their COGS.
Is this something you only recently realized?

ToddsterPatriot,, no, we’re all aware cost of goods, (COGs?) reduce their enterprises taxable incomes.

The concept of “destination based (income) tax”, is eliminating that tax deduction when it’s applied to the cost of products being imported into the USA. I would suppose that if it’s enforceable for goods, it can also be applied to services performed elsewhere in the world on behalf of the tax-paying enterprise.

I doubt that the IRS could enforce it at reasonable enforcement expense, thus it then couldn’t be enforced to a reasonable extent, thus enacting such a regulation would be net detrimental to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn[/QUOTE]
 
It’s not germane to this topic but another provision of those Republican’s proposal for modifying our corporate income tax is elimination of interest expenditures reducing enterprises’ taxable incomes.

This MIGHT somewhat increase federal tax revenues but I have considerable doubt that it would be other than economically net detrimental to our nation. It would increase product prices; there are many industries such as public utility companies that are very sensitive to the cost of borrowing.

I don’t understand why Paul Ryan and his Republican colleges in congress would entertain this mischievous proposal. I speculate if it’s to further eliminate tax deductible expenditures that might be mingled with the costs of purchasing and/or importing foreign products or services?
It makes no sense to disallow debt service expenses even if we limit that prohibition to only international payments.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Forum List

Back
Top