Obama wants to encourage manufacturing.

[Supposn]

Obama wants to encourage manufacturing?

I’m awaiting specifics but President Obama seems to be alluding creating a new tax provisions for encouraging US. manufacturing and exporting of manufactured products.

It would please me if our nation would achieve this but I suspect that the president has the wrong methods in mind.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS (more than otherwise) detrimental to their nation’s gross domestic production, (GDP). Nation’s global trade’s affect upon their GDP is generally understated (and never overstated) If we significantly decrease our trade deficit of goods, we will also induce a significant increase our GDP. GDP bolsters the median wage.

I’m personally in full agreement with the president’s apparently recognizing manufacturing as among the families of industries whose growth would be most advantageous to our nation. But I much prefer a proposal that does not favors any foreign nation, enterprise, industrial family or type of product; the Import Certificate trade policy is such a proposal.
The proposal’s market rather than government driven. U.S. federal determinations of assessed values are technical rather than policy determinations.

Refer to the topic “Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”
or to “www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com ”
or Google wikipedia, import certificates

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Obama wants to encourage manufacturing?

I’m awaiting specifics but President Obama seems to be alluding creating a new tax provisions for encouraging US. manufacturing and exporting of manufactured products.

It would please me if our nation would achieve this but I suspect that the president has the wrong methods in mind.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS (more than otherwise) detrimental to their nation’s gross domestic production, (GDP). Nation’s global trade’s affect upon their GDP is generally understated (and never overstated) If we significantly decrease our trade deficit of goods, we will also induce a significant increase our GDP. GDP bolsters the median wage.

I’m personally in full agreement with the president’s apparently recognizing manufacturing as among the families of industries whose growth would be most advantageous to our nation. But I much prefer a proposal that does not favors any foreign nation, enterprise, industrial family or type of product; the Import Certificate trade policy is such a proposal.
The proposal’s market rather than government driven. U.S. federal determinations of assessed values are technical rather than policy determinations.

Refer to the topic “Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”
or to “www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com ”
or Google wikipedia, import certificates

Respectfully, Supposn

There seems to be a concept that somehow manufactured goods somehow decrease the trade deficit while service "goods" do not. It is not true. Any kind of job in general will decrease the trade gap somewhat (people not working consume more then they produce).
But the real value of anything is in what someone thinks it is worth. I guess it is intuition that something you can physically grab is real and has value, but who is to say that a flat panel TV is worth more then a maid? Maybe to you it is, but to a millionaire it might not be. Or that a computer is more valuable then the services of the IT guy who made it work, when you (not you specifically) could not?

 

[DSGE]

Trade deficits are ALWAYS (more than otherwise) detrimental to their nation’s gross domestic production, (GDP).

That's not true. You still haven't managed to explain why you think that's true.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I am not in favor of the concept of raising taxes on everyone to give special considerations for favored businesses. If a business is a good idea, it will make a good profit. If it is not so good an idea, the taxpayer is robbed.

What would be better would be to redue the budget deficit, which is financed by the trade deficit. You reduce the amount of government's irresponsible and out of control spending, the trade deficit will take care of itself. Borrowing money from China to give to crooked campaign contributors is not the way to fix the problem, but only going to compound it.

 

[DSGE]

I am not in favor of the concept of raising taxes on everyone to give special considerations for favored businesses. If a business is a good idea, it will make a good profit. If it is not so good an idea, the taxpayer is robbed.

What would be better would be to reduce the budget deficit, which is financed by the trade deficit. You reduce the amount of government's irresponsible and out of control spending, the trade deficit will take care of itself. Borrowing money from China to give to crooked campaign contributors is not the way to fix the problem, but only going to compound it.

Ah, the trade deficit will not take care of itself. How do you figure it'll take care of itself? It's not even something to be taken care of.

 

[Supposn]

There seems to be a concept that somehow manufactured goods somehow decrease the trade deficit while service "goods" do not. It is not true. Any kind of job in general will decrease the trade gap somewhat (people not working consume more then they produce).
But the real value of anything is in what someone thinks it is worth. I guess it is intuition that something you can physically grab is real and has value, but who is to say that a flat panel TV is worth more then a maid? Maybe to you it is, but to a millionaire it might not be. Or that a computer is more valuable then the services of the IT guy who made it work, when you (not you specifically) could not?

Middle of the Road, I believe the USA had a trade surplus of services and a deficit of goods. I suppose we still have a trade surplus of services.

The Import Certificate proposal is only applicable to tangible goods crossing our borders. A good portion of services are in the form of information or intellectual property. Such traffic is difficult to regulate. The era of prohibition should have taught us was the harm done by enacting ineffectual or otherwise less enforceable laws.

Assessments are adjusted to exclude the value of specifically listed precious, semi-precious or scarce minerals integral to goods. The inclusion of such value would actually undermine this trade policy’s economic benefit.
Services and specifically listed minerals exclusion from this trade policy do no additional harm to the nation or mitigates the benefits due to the remainder of this policy. I have no problem with acceptance of a half of a loaf when it doesn’t limit opportunities to acquire the other half.

If the policy were applied to petroleum, the consequences would be of lesser benefit and much more likely to be of both net economic and political harm. The issues of fossil fuels should be addressed within other than this trade policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Trade deficits are ALWAYS (more than otherwise) detrimental to their nation’s gross domestic production, (GDP).

That's not true. You still haven't managed to explain why you think that's true.

DSGE, the validity of my explanation is not dependent upon you or I.
You don’t, I do accept it.

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

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

I am not in favor of the concept of raising taxes on everyone to give special considerations for favored businesses. If a business is a good idea, it will make a good profit. If it is not so good an idea, the taxpayer is robbed.

Baruch Menachem, although this proposal may seem to be a boon to exporters of USA products, it is indirectly but very effectively a U.S. export subsidy ultimately and entirely funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.

If you as I do accept the concept of competitive free enterprise, then you accept the concept the scenario that competing exporters of USA products and negotiations initiated by foreign purchasers of USA products will all conspire to reduce prices of U.S. exported products. Thus U.S. products can better compete with foreign producers’ lower wages.

U.S. purchasers of foreign goods drive our trade deficit of goods. It is reasonable that to the extent they’re the cause of our goods’ trade deficit, they should pay the cost of its mitigation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

...........................................What would be better would be to redue the budget deficit, which is financed by the trade deficit. You reduce the amount of government's irresponsible and out of control spending, the trade deficit will take care of itself. Borrowing money from China to give to crooked campaign contributors is not the way to fix the problem, but only going to compound it.

Baruch Menachem, reducing our federal budget deficit would of course be of great benefit to our economy.

The import Certificate program is funded entirely by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods. It diverts nothing from any other program to improve our nation. It does nothing that would hinder congressional efforts to balance the budget.

I disagree (if you’re contending) to the extent we reduce our budget deficit, it will similarly reduce our trade deficit.

Regardless of how well nations’ economy may be doing, ALWAYS their trade surpluses’ increase or their trade deficits decrease their GDPs more than otherwise.

Balance of trade is not an item within the federal budget.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[California Girl]

It's taken him 3 years to work this out? No wonder this country's in a mess.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I am not in favor of the concept of raising taxes on everyone to give special considerations for favored businesses. If a business is a good idea, it will make a good profit. If it is not so good an idea, the taxpayer is robbed.

Baruch Menachem, although this proposal may seem to be a boon to exporters of USA products, it is indirectly but very effectively a U.S. export subsidy ultimately and entirely funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.

If you as I do accept the concept of competitive free enterprise, then you accept the concept the scenario that competing exporters of USA products and negotiations initiated by foreign purchasers of USA products will all conspire to reduce prices of U.S. exported products. Thus U.S. products can better compete with foreign producers’ lower wages.

U.S. purchasers of foreign goods drive our trade deficit of goods. It is reasonable that to the extent they’re the cause of our goods’ trade deficit, they should pay the cost of its mitigation.

Respectfully, Supposn

No government interference with a free economy makes things more fair. Quite the reverse. Just because other governments are dumb does not mean ours should strive to be dumber.

 

[alan1]

Not that i am against manufacturing, but I am really curious to know what kind of manufacturing jobs he wants his own daughters to have when they grow up.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama wants to encourage manufacturing.

Seems silly to me, but whatever.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow!

What a clueless fucking scumbag we have for POTUS

Just fucking wow.

You want to help US manufacturing, cancel ObamaCare, stop racking up annual trillion deficit and go suck your bodyguards dick until your miserable one term ends

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Hey Frank, what have you got against the Secret Service?

 

[Supposn]

No government interference with a free economy makes things more fair. Quite the reverse. Just because other governments are dumb does not mean ours should strive to be dumber.

Baruch Menachem, our governments are frequently called upon parsing valid concepts that confront each other within the same issue at hand.

I don’t doubt that the government that governs least, governs best.
I also do not doubt that government should be participants in activities of sufficient importance where individual performance is impractical or undesirable.

Justice Holmes made it clear that I’m entitled to swing my arms but right ends where the next man’s nose begins.

I seem to always agree with Libertarians expressed goals; Libertarians advocate liberty and are opposed to racial discrimination; but then they go a few steps too far. They’re opposed to the public accommodations laws; the owners of should be able to refuse service to anyone and they need not justify their decisions.
Libertarians support individual liberty to the extent that given the opportunity they would have us return to Jim Crow society.

I’m a proponent for justifying all existing or proposed laws upon their own individual merits.
specifically with regard to the proposed Import Certificate trade policy, We’ve been suffering a median wage that increases extremely little, (during the Bush administrations it had sometimes declined). I object to the restraining USA’s median wage because China is unable and/or unwilling to better compensate their labor.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[alan1]

Below is a treatise I wrote last year, I can't recall if I've ever posted it on this board.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficiency Causes Job Loss​

In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.

I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, alan? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”

The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
Despite the decline in the US workforce involved in manufacturing the US has remained the country with largest output of manufactured goods for 110 years. This year (2011) China may finally overtake the US as the world’s largest manufacturer of goods. But then, they do have 4 times the population of the US.

I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to add, in 2011 China did not overtake the US as the worlds largest output of manufactured goods, it will probably happen this year.

 

[Supposn]

Alan1, you’ve brought up the topic of agriculture which I seldom read or hear about. (I live in the NY City/New Jersey area).

A few years ago I was looking for something within an Information Please Almanac. One of the markets near my home has signs describing the fruits and vegetables including their origins. I believe I was looking at U.S. global trade figures for the year 2004. It seemed to me, (7 years ago) excluding price supported commodities, U.S. was then approaching a trade deficit of agricultural goods.

[We U.S. tax payers pay increased prices for supported commodities sold domestically and additionally pay for government’s subsidizing those goods’ exports].
This Import Certificate proposal is eventually and entirely funded by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.
The proposal does not favor any foreign nation or enterprise or family of industries but it affects production that supports or is supported by or participates in foreign trade.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[DSGE]

Trade deficits are ALWAYS (more than otherwise) detrimental to their nation’s gross domestic production, (GDP).

That's not true. You still haven't managed to explain why you think that's true.

DSGE, the validity of my explanation is not dependent upon you or I.
You don’t, I do accept it.

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

Respectfully, Supposn

I have. I've read that and your blog. There was no such explanation as to why a trade deficit lowers GDP. There was the assertion that it does, but no corresponding justification. If you want to continue claiming that "a trade deficit is ALWAYS detrimental to a nation's GDP", you need to justify it. It's your claim. Surely you can explain why you think it's true?

 

[editec]

How do imports reduce the GDP?

You're kidding right?