Inadequate federal regulation, not Romney’s Bain Capital was at fault.

[likeabird03]

Wrong. The fact that the government subsidizes debt through the tax write offs of interest payments is what makes something as absurd as private equity and leveraged buy-outs actually profitable. That's the problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

something as absurd as private equity and leveraged buy-outs actually profitable. That's the problem.

Of course there is nothing absurd about buying things or stocks as private equity investors do.

Would the liberal make buying things illegal???????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Edward Baiamonte, enterprises import foreign goods because it’s to their best interests to do so.
USA’s trade deficit is detrimental to our economy.

actually importing goods from across town or across the world is a very very very good thing. If you could not do it you would have to make everything yourself and you'd be far far far poorer.

Please post that on your bedroom wall where you can pass it many times a day. I'll bet you $10,000 if you use that profound wisdom you will never lose a debate against a liberal.

 

[Supposn]

Edward Baiamonte, enterprises import foreign goods because it’s to their best interests to do so.
USA’s trade deficit is detrimental to our economy.

actually importing goods from across town or across the world is a very very very good thing. If you could not do it you would have to make everything yourself and you'd be far far far poorer.

Please post that on your bedroom wall where you can pass it many times a day. I'll bet you $10,000 if you use that profound wisdom you will never lose a debate against a liberal.

Edward Baiamonte, your position’s certainly correct if you share equal allegiance to your own and other nations or are much more altruistic than me.
I’m personally unwilling to sacrifice the finances of USA’s working poor families. If it’s the sense of the U.S Congress that we be a more charitable nation, the cost should be borne by all U.S. taxpayers.

A trade deficit’s ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ economy.
The transferable Import Certificate policy I advocate would significantly decrease our trade policy, and increase our GDP and our sum of USA’s aggregate imports plus exports more than otherwise. You don’t object to our global trade goods moving in both directions?

I’m not Romney and I can’t afford to play with cash as if it were Monopoly money. His $10,000 remark is among the reasons why he will never be United States President.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[DSGE]

A trade deficit’s ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ economy.

Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)

 

[Supposn]

A trade deficit’s ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ economy.

Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)

DSGE, that link’s the best I can do.
I understand you don’t accept that explanation’s validity, but that’s it.

On the other hand can you post a brief and valid critique of the explanation; what’s your explanation?
Citing historic data is unacceptable because we disagree as to cause and effect.
Your conclusion rather than the data is contended.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Edward Baiamonte, your position’s certainly correct if you share equal allegiance to your own and other nations

please reread for comprehension this time. I said trade across town or across the world is a good thing. If liberals made it illegal you'd have to make everything yourself and you'd be very very poor if not dead.

The Golden Rule is: the more with whom you trade the richer you get, the less with whom you trade the poorer you get. PLease put it on your bedroom wall!.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A trade deficit’s ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ economy.

of course thats idiotic and perfectly liberal since, 1) we've had a trade deficit since just after WW2 , at least according to traditional bookkeeping, and it never bothered us much and 2) a trade deficit is really impossible since every Walmart dollar we sent to China must be spent in America. There must be a balance; that is why they call it a balance of payments. Did you think China burned our dollars?

 

[Supposn]

A trade deficit’s ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ economy.

of course thats idiotic and perfectly liberal since, 1) we've had a trade deficit since just after WW2 , at least according to traditional bookkeeping, and it never bothered us much and 2) a trade deficit is really impossible since every Walmart dollar we sent to China must be spent in America. There must be a balance; that is why they call it a balance of payments. Did you think China burned our dollars?

Edward Baiamonte, your message is foolish and foolishness is not limited to any political party. If you were a populist, your message would remain foolish.
I don’t doubt that there are prsons that agree with you. I am certain us aint you and I.

Would I be presumptuous to assume that auto accidents or fires or floods bother your group? They also have been occurring during the period you refer to. Regardless of the extent that you all were “bothered”, (i.e. regardless of you all being slightly or greatly or not at all bothered by such occurrences), those occurrences were detrimental to our nation.

I have more confidence in my own logical analysis of this topic and less confidence in yours. I have more confidence of economic communities with regard to this issue, and less confidence in your determination.
Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

You state a trade deficit’s impossible, but some nations do have them and the USA has (I think) the largest amount of national trade deficit.

You speculate as to what other nations do with their shares of USA’s global trade deficit. A significant portion of U.S. global trade payments were not spent for the purchase of U.S. products. That’s the definition of the trade deficit that you state is non-existing.

Transfers of wealth are not factored into the GDP. USA’s global trade balance is factored into the GDP.

If our imports’ and exports actually balanced, a balance of zero would be added into USA’s GDP. If imports would equal exports, a balance of zero is factored into the GDP; if exports exceed imports, the positive amount would be contributed to USA’s GDP. and because U.S. imports actually exceed our exports, the negative balance reduces the GDP.

Trade Deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their GDPs.
Trade balance’s affect upon GDP are generally understated.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[DSGE]

A trade deficit’s ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ economy.

Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)

DSGE, that link’s the best I can do.
I understand you don’t accept that explanation’s validity, but that’s it.

On the other hand can you post a brief and valid critique of the explanation; what’s your explanation?
Citing historic data is unacceptable because we disagree as to cause and effect.
Your conclusion rather than the data is contended.

Respectfully, Supposn

There's no explanation in there. You make an assertion "trade deficits are always detrimental to an economy's GDP", but you don't justify it. It can't be that hard to give me a concise explanation of why you think that happens.

A trade deficit means we're consuming more than we're producing. So we're already consuming all the stuff we've produced domestically (our GDP) but we want more. So we borrow internationally and import from countries who want to consume less than they've produced. So it doesn't lower GDP. We consume all our GDP but then want more. Since the economy isn't capable of producing more in the short run we get a loan from overseas and buy it elsewhere.

I assume your argument is something along the lines of "If we buy something from overseas then that's money leaving the country. That money could have bought something domestically". That's fallacious. When you buy something from China what do you pay for it with? American dollars (if you're in the US). What is the person in China who sold you something gonna do with US dollars? They can't go down to the store and buy milk with US dollars. They're not gonna just keep US dollars under their mattress for no reason. They're gonna find somebody to exchange US dollars for Chinese Renminbi. But why would a person want US dollars except to buy US goods? And if they couldn't find anybody who wanted US dollars to buy US goods, they wouldn't sell anything to the US in the first place since the money they get would be useless. So all money that leaves the US ultimately comes back into the US.

 

[DSGE]

If our imports’ and exports actually balanced, a balance of zero would be added into USA’s GDP. If imports would equal exports, a balance of zero is factored into the GDP; if exports exceed imports, the positive amount would be contributed to USA’s GDP. and because U.S. imports actually exceed our exports, the negative balance reduces the GDP.

Are you basing this on GDP = C + I + G + X - M? Because the - M bit is there to avoid counting foreign goods. C isn't just domestic consumption, it's also consumption of foreign goods. Some goes for I and G. So the - M is there to remove the parts of consumption, investment and government spending which are foreign goods. If M increases GDP doesn't fall because C, I and G all go up by exactly M. GDP stays the same irrespective of imports. Which is common sense really. GDP measures gross domestic product. Shit produced internationally doesn't effect total domestic production.

 

[Supposn]

Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)

DSGE, that link’s the best I can do.
I understand you don’t accept that explanation’s validity, but that’s it.

On the other hand can you post a brief and valid critique of the explanation; what’s your explanation?
Citing historic data is unacceptable because we disagree as to cause and effect.
Your conclusion rather than the data is contended.

Respectfully, Supposn

There's no explanation in there. You make an assertion "trade deficits are always detrimental to an economy's GDP", but you don't justify it. ................

DSGE, Refer to the topic
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”
posted at 10:25AM, November 30, 2011.

The entire discussion topic is devoted to that explanation.
When you wrote “Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)”, I thought you were referring to this link.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Shit produced internationally doesn't effect total domestic production.

1) of course it does because what we buy internationally effects or reduces what we produce here.

2) it especially important because the liberals hamstring our industries with idioitc taxes thus making us buy more internationally.

3) Also important because the liberals run huge budget deficits thus enabling China to buy our debt rather than our domestic production.

 

[DSGE]

DSGE, that link’s the best I can do.
I understand you don’t accept that explanation’s validity, but that’s it.

On the other hand can you post a brief and valid critique of the explanation; what’s your explanation?
Citing historic data is unacceptable because we disagree as to cause and effect.
Your conclusion rather than the data is contended.

Respectfully, Supposn

There's no explanation in there. You make an assertion "trade deficits are always detrimental to an economy's GDP", but you don't justify it. ................

DSGE, Refer to the topic
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”
posted at 10:25AM, November 30, 2011.

The entire discussion topic is devoted to that explanation.
When you wrote “Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)”, I thought you were referring to this link.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah I've been there before and started this line of questioning before. The same applies as to your blog. You only make assertions that it's detrimental but never provide reasons. I did two quick paragraphs explaining some things. Is it really that hard for you to do? Or do you not understand your own position well enough to give a clear and concise explanation?

Also, you didn't actually respond to any of my arguments. Is this conversation gonna be just you referring me to reading material, or is it actually gonna be a dialogue where we respond to each other's points?

 

[DSGE]

Shit produced internationally doesn't effect total domestic production.

1) of course it does because what we buy internationally effects or reduces what we produce here.

2) it especially important because the liberals hamstring our industries with idioitc taxes thus making us buy more internationally.

3) Also important because the liberals run huge budget deficits thus enabling China to buy our debt rather than our domestic production.

Once again you haven't explained how and you haven't addressed any of my criticisms. You just keep on making unfounded assertions. Will you ever stop making an arse out of yourself?

 

[Supposn]

There's no explanation in there. You make an assertion "trade deficits are always detrimental to an economy's GDP", but you don't justify it. ................

DSGE, Refer to the topic
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”
posted at 10:25AM, November 30, 2011.

The entire discussion topic is devoted to that explanation.
When you wrote “Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)”, I thought you were referring to this link.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah I've been there before and started this line of questioning before. The same applies as to your blog. You only make assertions that it's detrimental but never provide reasons. I did two quick paragraphs explaining some things. Is it really that hard for you to do? Or do you not understand your own position well enough to give a clear and concise explanation?

Also, you didn't actually respond to any of my arguments. Is this conversation gonna be just you referring me to reading material, or is it actually gonna be a dialogue where we respond to each other's points?

DSGE, you’re correct. We’re bypassing each other rather than discussing or debating precisely the same points at the same time.
I attribute part of our difficulty to our, (i.e. both of us on occasions) failing to specify the message numbers when we’re referring to a specific message.

For example in the message #34 you wrote:
“I did two quick paragraphs explaining some things. Is it really that hard for you to do? Or do you not understand your own position well enough to give a clear and concise explanation?”.

I don’t know what two paragraphs within what message you’re referring to.

This is a forum of written postings. In response to your requesting “a clear and concise explanation”, I referred you to the topic “Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”
posted at 10:25AM, November 30, 2011.

This topic’s entitled “Inadequate federal regulation, not Romney’s Bain Capital was at fault”.
I suggest we acknowledge this digression of subject and go to the referred topic.

I see no point to transcribing the referred topics messages into this topic.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Inadequate federal regulation, not Romney’s Bain Capital was at fault.

We all do what we can to function within our environment and commercial enterprises exist within environments primarily affected by the nations’ governments. When Bain Capital maximized their profits regardless of the effects upon all others, it behaved true to its purpose. Bain and Romney should not be faulted for what was essentially driven by governments’ laws’ and regulations.

Correct on both counts.

Romney did nothing ‘wrong,’ his activities with Bain were perfectly legal and appropriate.

Anyone who uses Bain as some sort of political weapon against Romney is simply wrong.

Romney is unqualified to be president because he’s wrong on the issues, not because of Bain. Indeed, Romney and his supporters advocate the same failed economic policies that brought about the crisis to begin with.

 

[DSGE]

DSGE, Refer to the topic
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”
posted at 10:25AM, November 30, 2011.

The entire discussion topic is devoted to that explanation.
When you wrote “Briefly explain how. (a link to your blog doesn't count)”, I thought you were referring to this link.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah I've been there before and started this line of questioning before. The same applies as to your blog. You only make assertions that it's detrimental but never provide reasons. I did two quick paragraphs explaining some things. Is it really that hard for you to do? Or do you not understand your own position well enough to give a clear and concise explanation?

Also, you didn't actually respond to any of my arguments. Is this conversation gonna be just you referring me to reading material, or is it actually gonna be a dialogue where we respond to each other's points?

DSGE, you’re correct. We’re bypassing each other rather than discussing or debating precisely the same points at the same time.
I attribute part of our difficulty to our, (i.e. both of us on occasions) failing to specify the message numbers when we’re referring to a specific message.

For example in the message #34 you wrote:
“I did two quick paragraphs explaining some things. Is it really that hard for you to do? Or do you not understand your own position well enough to give a clear and concise explanation?”.

I don’t know what two paragraphs within what message you’re referring to.

This is a forum of written postings. In response to your requesting “a clear and concise explanation”, I referred you to the topic “Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”
posted at 10:25AM, November 30, 2011.

This topic’s entitled “Inadequate federal regulation, not Romney’s Bain Capital was at fault”.
I suggest we acknowledge this digression of subject and go to the referred topic.

I see no point to transcribing the referred topics messages into this topic.

Respectfully, Supposn

I usually use quotes in front of whatever I'm responding to. In reference to my "two paragraphs" point, I assumed I didn't have to number the post in reference since it was the post you were quoting and the only post in which I gave two short paragraphs explaining why trade deficits don't lower GDP.

As I've said (in post #34), the thread you're directing me to does not contain an explanation as to why a deficit lowers GDP, merely assertions that that is the case. Yes it's not the topic of the thread, but it's expected that points brought up during discussion of the thread topic will be segued into and analysed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Romney and his supporters advocate the same failed economic policies that brought about the crisis to begin with.

of course if that was true you would not be so afraid to name the policy most responsible for the crisis. A lie will do just fine for a liberal won't it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You just keep on making unfounded assertions.

of course if true you would not be so afraid to indentify the most significant unfounded assertion. What does you fear tell you?