Top Ten Trade Deficit Partners!

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does losing a trade war do to an economy? Believe it or not we are in a trade war with China and losing it! They are the only ones fighting it.


I love the don't fight the trade war comment, but bending over to say Japan and South Korea is a good thing? Both of these countries benefit from non-barriers to our markets, but both place high barriers on our products. American Made Cars in SK have such barriers in advertising, quotas, sales tax increases, locations etc. Yet those SK cars have no barriers in the US!

Believe it or not we are in a trade war with China and losing it!

Because they sell us cheap stuff that we willingly buy?

and because they US Dollars they get must eventually be spent here anyway.

They could burn them or use them as wallpaper.
Would that mean they won the trade war?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does losing a trade war do to an economy? Believe it or not we are in a trade war with China and losing it! They are the only ones fighting it.

I love the don't fight the trade war comment, but bending over to say Japan and South Korea is a good thing? Both of these countries benefit from non-barriers to our markets, but both place high barriers on our products. American Made Cars in SK have such barriers in advertising, quotas, sales tax increases, locations etc. Yet those SK cars have no barriers in the US!

GHook93, if and when our nation enacted an Import Certificate global trade policy, it is conceivable that some may seek to hinder exporting to the USA of their goods which have scarce mineral materials integral to those goods. That would be detrimental to USA’s economic interests.
[The word conceivable does not mean “likely or probably”; what can conceivably be attempted may greatly differ from what can be effectively accomplished].

I share your concern of USA’s lack of will to defend ourselves from others’ activities that are detrimental to our global trade. If a possibly effective attempt to hinder our importing goods with scarce minerals were encountered, I would suppose our nation would have no other alternative but to defend ourselves. Ii's regretable our congress does not now and forever insist and if necessary retribute against nations granting their imports from any other nations being granted more favorable treatment than their treatment of USA products.

I doubt it is possible for any entities to effectively halt all global exports to the USA of goods containing any particular scarce minerals. Within a USA trade policy of Import Certificates, that’ would be the only possibly seriously harmful intervention of our national global trade. Other than that, there’s no other mischief that others could perpetrate against us that would not also be of much greater harm to their own nations. It is not in our nation’s interests to seek adversarial global trade confrontations with other nations but should such confrontations occur the USA would emerge economically stronger rather than weaker if we defended ourselves.

Because transferable Import certificates have value, the proposal's opponents consider there are no essential differences between Import Certificates and tariffs. Regardless of IC’s global market prices, the assessed values of our imported goods could never exceed that of our exports. This s not subject to any manipulation or policy discretion of any entity (including the U.S. federal government itself). The proposal would behav as an export subsidy. It is market rather than government driven; assessments of goods’ values are technical rather than policy determinations. The proposal’s net direct expenses are entirely borne by USA purchasers of foreign goods subject to the proposal.

This market driven policy is self adjusting. Even if our government continues to fail defending USA producers and products, this policy would be of net advantage for any USA producer that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA’s borders. There’s no effective threat of “trade wars” due to this policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

The proposal’s net direct expenses are entirely borne by USA purchasers of foreign goods subject to the proposal.

Yes!
And we know that a sure way to raise our standard of living is the raise the cost of the goods we purchase.

 

[Supposn]

................. ...........................The proposal’s net direct expenses are entirely borne by USA purchasers of foreign goods subject to the proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes!
And we know that a sure way to raise our standard of living is the raise the cost of the goods we purchase.

Toddsrter Patriot, you’re not a proponent of accountability?

In aggregate USA purchasers of foreign goods are the beneficiaries of their purchases, they’ are the root cause of our global trade deficit and it’s reasonable that they should pay the cost of eliminating those trade deficits.

Respectfully, Bernard Belitsky

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

................. ...........................The proposal’s net direct expenses are entirely borne by USA purchasers of foreign goods subject to the proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes!
And we know that a sure way to raise our standard of living is the raise the cost of the goods we purchase.

Toddsrter Patriot, you’re not a proponent of accountability?

In aggregate USA purchasers of foreign goods are the beneficiaries of their purchases, they’ are the root cause of our global trade deficit and it’s reasonable that they should pay the cost of eliminating those trade deficits.

Respectfully, Bernard Belitsky

Accountability? If I spend cash on the purchase of a foreign good, why do I need to pay the cost to eliminate any deficit?
I paid cash.
Stop worrying about an imaginary number and worry instead about how to make us more productive.
I'll give you a clue (because then you'd finally have one), it won't come from more government interference and self-imposed higher costs on our purchases.

 

[Supposn]

....... Accountability? If I spend cash on the purchase of a foreign good, why do I need to pay the cost to eliminate any deficit?
I paid cash.
Stop worrying about an imaginary number and worry instead about how to make us more productive.
I'll give you a clue (because then you'd finally have one), it won't come from more government interference and self-imposed higher costs on our purchases.

Toddster Patriot, the difference between the values if USA’s exports and imports were not spent for USA goods or services, (if that were the case, there’d be no USA trade deficit); they were not spent on tools and materials to increase USA’s future production; they were spent for USA consumed foreign products.

The production of those foreign products did not contribute to USA’s GDP or median wage.
[I.e. there’s no difference between domestic and foreign goods entered into USA’s domestic markets but prior to that, the production of imports contributed essentially nothing to USA’s economy].

I am not demeaning the value of loans and investments but the USA needs increasing production, jobs and median wage much more than increased foreign investment. Trade deficits are always an immediate detriment to their nation’s GDPs and median wages.

We agree that global trade transactions are generally beneficial to their mutually agreeing principles, but annual trade deficits are a net economic detriment to their nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

....... Accountability? If I spend cash on the purchase of a foreign good, why do I need to pay the cost to eliminate any deficit?
I paid cash.
Stop worrying about an imaginary number and worry instead about how to make us more productive.
I'll give you a clue (because then you'd finally have one), it won't come from more government interference and self-imposed higher costs on our purchases.

Toddster Patriot, the difference between the values if USA’s exports and imports were not spent for USA goods or services, (if that were the case, there’d be no USA trade deficit); they were not spent on tools and materials to increase USA’s future production; they were spent for USA consumed foreign products.

The production of those foreign products did not contribute to USA’s GDP or median wage.
[I.e. there’s no difference between domestic and foreign goods entered into USA’s domestic markets but prior to that, the production of imports contributed essentially nothing to USA’s economy].

I am not demeaning the value of loans and investments but the USA needs increasing production, jobs and median wage much more than increased foreign investment. Trade deficits are always an immediate detriment to their nation’s GDPs and median wages.

We agree that global trade transactions are generally beneficial to their mutually agreeing principles, but annual trade deficits are a net economic detriment to their nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

they were not spent on tools and materials to increase USA’s future production; they were spent for USA consumed foreign products.

Damn, we need to limit the freedom of Americans to buy what they wish with their own money. Too much freedom!

the USA needs increasing production, jobs and median wage much more than increased foreign investment.

I agree, but we need to do it by reducing government interference, not increasing it.
Reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and eliminating idiotic regulations and mandates.

annual trade deficits are a net economic detriment to their nations.

I've already showed you the error in your absolute statement, by using the example of oil imports.
Do I need to explain it again?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trade deficits are always an immediate detriment to their nation’s GDPs and median wages.

any reason to think that????

 

[Supposn]

Damn, we need to limit the freedom of Americans to buy what they wish with their own money. Too much freedom!

the USA needs increasing production, jobs and median wage much more than increased foreign investment.

I agree, but we need to do it by reducing government interference, not increasing it.
Reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and eliminating idiotic regulations and mandates.

Toddsterr Patriot, among the legal requirements of contracts are they may not be characteristic of agreements or require activity that our governments' have described to be contrary to the public interests and thus deemed to be illegal.

I’m among those that believe although wage and salary earning families are not mentioned within importers and exporters agreements, cheaper imported goods do not compensate for trade deficit’s harm to their nations’ GDPs and median wages; (i.e. to USA wage and salary earners’ financial conditions).

If and when the federal laws governing imports should be modified to favor what I prefer, regardless of individuals’ approval or disapproval, those seeking to evade the legaly enacted laws risk the defined penalties for their disobediences.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

cheaper imported goods do not compensate for trade deficit’s harm to their nations’ GDPs and median wages;

so then does the absurd liberal want a law against anyone making cheaper, better products in California and China?????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Damn, we need to limit the freedom of Americans to buy what they wish with their own money. Too much freedom!

the USA needs increasing production, jobs and median wage much more than increased foreign investment.

I agree, but we need to do it by reducing government interference, not increasing it.
Reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and eliminating idiotic regulations and mandates.

Toddsterr Patriot, among the legal requirements of contracts are they may not be characteristic of agreements or require activity that our governments' have described to be contrary to the public interests and thus deemed to be illegal.

I’m among those that believe although wage and salary earning families are not mentioned within importers and exporters agreements, cheaper imported goods do not compensate for trade deficit’s harm to their nations’ GDPs and median wages; (i.e. to USA wage and salary earners’ financial conditions).

If and when the federal laws governing imports should be modified to favor what I prefer, regardless of individuals’ approval or disapproval, those seeking to evade the legaly enacted laws risk the defined penalties for their disobediences.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterr Patriot, among the legal requirements of contracts are they may not be characteristic of agreements or require activity that our governments' have described to be contrary to the public interests and thus deemed to be illegal.

My freely choosing to pay cash for a foreign good is going to be deemed illegal?

Take your big government ideas and stick them up your ass.

 

[Supposn]

My freely choosing to pay cash for a foreign good is going to be deemed illegal?
Take your big government ideas and stick them up your ass.

Toddster Patriot, I’m supposing you’re pretending to be stupid or illogical.

Within a U.S. global trade policy of Import Certificates, (i.e. ICs), no one questions any persons’ rights to purchase imported goods; but IC s authorizing goods’ assessed values must be surrendered to the federal government before those goods are permitted to enter the USA.

Surrendered ICs are cancelled; they can only be used once.
The Exported U.S. goods are assessed and transferable ICs are issued by the U.S. government only to exporters of U.S. goods who agree to pay the fees that defray all net U.S. costs due to this trade proposal. The ICs authorize importing goods with assessed values no greater than that of the exported U.S. goods upon which the ICs were issued.

It’s expected that those fees will be passed on to the final purchasers or users of the foreign goods.

Refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...significantly-reduce-usa-s-trade-deficit.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Trade deficits are always an immediate detriment to their nation’s GDPs and median wages.

any reason to think that????

EdwardBaiamonte, refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trade deficits are always an immediate detriment to their nation’s GDPs and median wages.

any reason to think that????

EdwardBaiamonte, refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...always-detrimental-to-their-nations-gdps.html

Respectfully, Supposn

what you lack the IQ to say is that being fat, lazy, and uncompetitive with a dumb liberal government is always detrimental to an economy and will cause a trade deficit.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?? You mistake symptom for cause, but we expect no more from a liberal so don't worry.

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterr Patriot, among the legal requirements of contracts are they may not be characteristic of agreements or require activity that our governments' have described to be contrary to the public interests and thus deemed to be illegal.

My freely choosing to pay cash for a foreign good is going to be deemed illegal?

Take your big government ideas and stick them up your ass.

ToddsterPatriot, please explain what you meant by this response. There's nothing illegal about paying cash.

But within a policy of Import Certificates, you could not bring goods into the USA unless you surrendered ICs with face values to cover the assessed value of your imported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

I share your concerns.

However unlike you I do not give the GOP a pass on these developments.

 

[GHook93]

This is as-of Nov 2012

Foreign Trade: Data
Year To Date
Deficit in Deficit in
Millions Millions
Country Name of U.S. $ of U.S. $

China -28,953.78 -290,600.45
Germany -6,237.44 -54,315.66
Japan -6,190.10 -70,592.12
Mexico -4,864.03 -57,417.48
Canada -3,001.41 -28,880.90
Saudi Arabia -2,614.92 -35,803.94
Ireland -2,296.48 -24,435.73
Italy -2,086.03 -19,306.79
Venezuela -1,980.87 -19,788.03
Korea, South 1,789.30 -15,426.18

Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are some what understand because they are our #2 & #3 source of oil. Canada is somewhat understandable, because they are out #1 source of foreign oil and they have a much smaller population, but we share a border with them we should be exporting more items to them.

What is happening with China, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Mexico is UNACCEPTABLE!!!

CHINA: The deficit with China is $300 BILLION YTD! Why do we let them rape us like this. We are in a trade war with them, only problem we are not fighting it, but they are!

MEXICO: Prior to NAFTA we had a surplus with Mexico, now our deficit is spinning out of control and it's laughable. Soon we will be sending illegal gringos South of the border to get work!

JAPAN and GERMANY: How can it be? Both have high salaries, high standard of living and costs similar to ours? Yet they seem to sell us crap but not the other way around!

SOUTH KOREA: New comer to the list. Yes we signed the increase the deficit deal with SK! Working just like we thought it would. They kept up their trade barriers with us and we removed the few we had with them. 2013 they will be right behind Canada on the list!

This is sick and disgusting and this is an Obama thing! This has been going on for decades and was put into over-drive by Clinton. He signed NAFTA, he removed the trade barriers with China and he helped propel China into the WTO.

Right now the manufacturing sector makes up 9% of work force, true we still produce 18.2% of the world's goods in dollar amount, but the workforce is too small. Healthy for developing countries like China and Russia should be 40%+, which both are, but for industrialized countries like ours, 25%+ is the mark, we are less than HALF of that and shrinking!

We produce a lot of the world's good, but manufacturing and assembly is a tiny percentage of the work force - 9%!!! China and Russia are 40%+ manufacturing and that is because they are less efficient, less automated and rely more on human labor, while we are more efficient and automated (meaning we get get things done through our automations and 1 worker than China and Russia can get done with 10 workers). Therefore shooting for 40% is not going to happen. However a healthy manufacturing sector for a very automated and efficient country like our's should mirror Germany and Japans in the 20%+! We need diversification in the workforce. Diversification between, manufacturing, construction, agriculture, service, finance/banking, energy etc would lead to more employee power, higher incomes etc. Yet we get raped by the trade deficit and now one wins.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we get raped by the trade deficit and now one wins.

the trade deficit is because we buy more than we sell.

Easy to fix:
1) eliminate financial deficit so China and Japan have to buy our goods and services rather than our deficits

2) make unions illegal again to repatriate many of the 30 million jobs they drove offshore

3) lower or eliminate corporate tax( highest in world) so companies can afford to operate here and create jobs here


Now do you understand??

 

[GHook93]

Easy to fix:
1) eliminate financial deficit so China and Japan have to buy our goods and services rather than our deficits

Four countries take advantage of us: China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea. We need to address that

2) make unions illegal again to repatriate many of the 30 million jobs they drove offshore

Eliminating public unions is a great idea, or at least collective bargaining and pensions for government workers. But its a bad idea for private elimination. Unions have way way too much power, but they have a place. Reduce their power and influence. Right to work should be the law of the land.

E3) lower or eliminate corporate tax( highest in world) so companies can afford to operate here and create jobs here

True, but via the flow-through taxation all non-C-Corps get hit with the income tax. Payroll and capital gains also put our corps at a disadvantage. The Fair Tax is the answer, but that would never fly with the socialist in charge of this country.

Healthcare costs also put our employers at a significant disadvantage. People mocked Herman Cain, but his 9-9-9 plan was the solution!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Four countries take advantage of us: China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea. We need to address that

dear, if I buy a Japanese car I don't feel taken advantage of I feel thankful to have had the option not to by American made liberal union junk!!

But its a bad idea for private elimination. Unions have way way too much power, but they have a place.

after shipping 30 million jobs off shore there place should be prison!!!
What don't you understand?????????

The Fair Tax is the answer, but that would never fly with the socialist in charge of this country.

does the fair tax eliminate the corporate tax so business can operate where it wants rather than off shore where liberals force them to operate.

Healthcare costs also put our employers at a significant disadvantage. People mocked Herman Cain, but his 9-9-9 plan was the solution!!!

his plan was very very bad since it adds a sales tax which we don't even have now and a business tax which is 100% inefficient since business taxes are merely passed on to consumers.

 

[Kimura]

Trade deficits are a net benefit to Americans on a whole. When you look at it, exports have tangible costs and imports are a benefit. Our trade deficit vastly improves our standard of living. The only reason we have net job losses are due to taxes being too high for a certain level of government spending, not directly as a result of imports. For example, going to work on a daily basis to produce the real goods and services to export for the foreign sector to consume doesn't contain a net economic benefit, unless we can import and consume the goods and services the foreign sector produces in return. The real, tangible wealth of a nation state is everything it produces and retains for itself, including all imports, less what is has to export. Many economists, including myself, used to have it backwards. The higher the trade deficit, the better for Americans.

The the United States can indefinitely support domestic output and full employment with a responsible fiscal policy, mostly accomplished through deficit spending and tax cuts. The is the reality even if China, or any other country, decides to ship us real goods and services, displacing American firms previously doing the work. The only prerequisite is to keep American spending power high enough to purchase real goods and services from the foreign sector and the real goods and services we produce ourselves at full employment levels. A correct fiscal policy will always produce enough spending power to be able to employ those willing to work, producing goods and services for public and private consumption. Unemployment levels were pretty low until the financial crisis, even with our huge trade deficits.