Trade Deficit

waltky · Feb 8, 2017

Granny says, "Dat's right - The Donald gonna fix dat...

USA Has Run Annual Trade Deficits for 41 Straight Years
February 7, 2017 | With the United States running trade deficits in both goods and services combined and goods alone in 2016, the nation has not seen a trade surplus in any of the last 41 years, according to data published by the Census Bureau.

The last time the United States ran a trade surplus was 1975--when Gerald Ford was president. The Census Bureau has published historical data on annual U.S. trade balances going back to 1960. In 13 of the 16 years from 1960 through 1975, the U.S. ran goods-and-services trade surpluses and surpluses in the trade of goods (merchandise) alone. But in each of the 41 years after 1975, according to data released by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. has run both a merchandise trade deficit and a goods and services deficit.

In 1974, as measured by the Census Bureau, the U.S. ran a merchandise trade surplus of $3,884,000,000. Then in 1975, the nation ran an $9,551,000,000 merchandise trade surplus. In 1976, however, the merchandise trade balance went back into the red—with a deficit of $$7,820,000,000. Every year since then, the U.S. has run a merchandise trade deficit. When the Bureau of Economic Analysis adds the U.S. trade balance in services to its calculation of the trade balance in goods, the U.S. still has 41 straight years of goods-and-services trade deficits.

In 1974, according to BEA, the U.S. had a goods-and-services trade deficit of $4,293,000,000. In 1975, the U.S. ran a goods-and-services trade surplus of $12,404,000,000. In 1976, however, the goods-and-services trade balance went back into the red—with a deficit of $6,082,000,000. Every year since then, the U.S. has run a goods-and-services trade deficit. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services peaked at $714,245,000,000 in 2005, according to the BEA. In 2016, it was $502,252,000,000. The U.S. trade in goods (merchandise) trade deficit peaked at $827,971,000,000 in 2006, according to the Census Bureau. In 2016, it was $734,316,000,000.

USA Has Run Annual Trade Deficits for 41 Straight Years
Click to expand...

See also:

2016 U.S. Merchandise Trade Deficit: $734,316,300,000
February 7, 2017 | The United States ran a merchandise trade deficit of $734,316,300,000 in 2016, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.

During 2016, the U.S. imported $2,188,940,500,000 in goods but exported only $1,454,624,200,000. The People’s Republic of China was the greatest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit for the year. The U.S bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China was $347,037,900,000. This deficit resulted from the U.S. importing $462,813,000,000 in goods from China while exporting only $115,775,100,00 in goods to China.

Japan was the second largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit in 2016. The U.S. imported $132,201,800,000 in goods from Japan while exporting only $63,264,300,000—resulting in a deficit of $68,937,600,000. German was the third largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit. The U.S. imported $114,227,400,000 from Germany while exporting $49,362,000,000—resulting in a deficit of $64,865,400,000.

Mexico was the fourth largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit. The U.S. imported $294,151,000,000 from Mexico while exporting $230,959,100,000—resulting in a deficit of $63,191,900,000. Ireland was the fifth largest contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit. The U.S. imported $45,503,900,000 from Ireland while exporting $9,555,700,000 to Ireland—resulting in a deficit of $35,948,200,000.

The 2016 merchandise trade deficit of $734,316,300,000 was slightly less than the $745,660,200,000 merchandise trade deficit that the United States ran in 2015 or the $735,193,900,000 merchandise trade deficit it ran in 2014. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. ran a combined goods and services trade deficit of $502,300,000,000 in 2016. “Exports of services decreased $1.3 billion to $749.6 billion in 2016,” said BEA. “Imports of services increased $13.1 billion to $501.8 billion in 2016,” said BEA.

2016 U.S. Merchandise Trade Deficit: $734,316,300,000
Click to expand...

expat_panama · Feb 9, 2017

waltky said: ↑

....Donald gonna fix dat... USA Has Run Annual Trade Deficits...
Click to expand...

A lot of folks say that but I haven't been hearing him lately talk about ending the trade deficit. He's not an idiot; he knows that when the trade deficit's big everyone's working but when it shrinks people lose their jobs:

--and he knows the same works for factory output:

Not everyone understands why this happens but everyone has to chose between accepting reality on its own terms or living a fantasy.

waltky · Mar 7, 2017

Could cause the loss of American freedom and prosperity...

US trade deficits are a threat to national security: Navarro
Tuesday 7th March, 2017 | WASHINGTON: The Trump administration's top trade advisor said on Monday (Mar 6) US trade deficits are a threat to national security that could cause the loss of American freedom and prosperity.

Outlining an unapologetically aggressive trade policy, Peter Navarro, director of the White House National Trade Council, accused economists and the media of ignoring the risk posed by trade deficits and embracing an "antiquated view of the world." Navarro singled out China and Germany in particular, saying that "in the real world of fixed exchange rates, managed floats and outright currency manipulation," the US trade deficit cannot adjust as economists say it should in theory.

That leads to large and persistent trade deficits which leave the US open to foreign takeover, he said in a speech to the National Association for Business Economics. "Suppose it is not a benign ally buying up our companies, our technology, our farmland and our food supply chain, and ultimately controlling much of our defense industrial base," he warned. "Rather it is a rapidly militarizing strategic rival, intent on hegemony in Asia and perhaps world hegemony."

US President Donald Trump signs an executive order alongside officials including National Trade Council Advisor Peter Navarro (3rd R) in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC.

That could lead to the loss of a "broader cold war for our freedom, prosperity and democracy, not by shots being fired but by cash registers ringing," and ultimately even to loss of a "hot war." He said China, which accounts for nearly US$350 billion of the US trade deficit, about half the total, is engaged in a "conscious strategy" to dramatically increase investment around the world, including in the United States and in Germany, where it is buying one company a week.

Navarro said the Trump administration will focus on tough actions aimed at "eliminating currency manipulation and other forms of trade cheating," which will create growth and jobs. "One of the major goals of the Trump administration is to reclaim all of the supply chain and manufacturing capability that would otherwise exist if the playing field were level." He railed against China for manipulating its currency and for rules that include requiring companies that want to operate in China to enter into joint ventures with national firms.

'AGGRESSIVE POLICIES'
Click to expand...

frigidweirdo · Mar 7, 2017

shoooot9 said: ↑

It is obvious that something must be done about the exponentially growing budget deficit. More importantly, the trade deficit, which is a huge problem, and is mostly a result of billions of dollars owed to foreign countries. America and the government must do something in order to set imports and exports at equilibrium. Currently, our imports far exceed our exports due to the fact that these foreign power nations are making many products found in America, but at a much cheaper price. In order to reduce trade deficit we must compete with these nations. We can not allow foreign countries to steal some of our GDP. The American producers must fight to compete with foreign prices and the American people most make a stand on domestic consumption.

Let me hear your thoughts on this topic?
Click to expand...

The desire to change education to meet the needs of the future appears to be nil in government and among the partisan. The desire to control the economy to benefit the country appears to be nil too, so the US will simply have to fit into the spaces people leave for them in the future.

waltky · Mar 8, 2018

U.S.-China Trade Deficit Set January Record...

-$35,952,800,000: U.S.-China Trade Deficit Set January Record
March 7, 2018 | The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China set a record for the month of January, hitting $35,952,800,000, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.

That was up 12.5 percent from the previous record, which was the $31,952,560,000 merchandise trade deficit (in constant January 2018 dollars) that the U.S. ran with the PRC in January 2017. The last time the United States ran a merchandise trade surplus with China in the month of January was 1985, when the U.S. ran a $26,100,000 surplus. In calendar year 2017, the United States ran a $375,227,500,000 merchandise trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China. That was by far the largest bilateral merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran with any country for that year. The second largest U.S. merchandise trade deficit in 2017 was the $71,056,500,000 deficit with Mexico. China’s one-month deficit of $35,952,800,000 in January equaled more than 50 percent (50.59 percent) of last year’s entire deficit with Mexico.

The third largest bilateral merchandise trade deficit that the U.S. ran last year was with Japan ($68,847,700,000), the fourth largest was with Germany ($64,252,000,000) and the fifth largest was with Vietnam ($38,320,000,000.) Two of the largest bilateral trade deficits the U.S. ran last year—those with China and Vietnam—were with countries that have communist governments. The United Kingdom was the seventh largest merchandise trading partner of the United States in 2017 when measured by the total value of both imports and exports. It was also the largest trading partner with which the U.S. ran a merchandise trade surplus in 2017. The U.S. exported $56,328,800,000 to the U.K. during the year and imported $53,074,900,000—running an annual surplus of $3,253,900,000.

In January, the United States exported $4,779,900,000 to the U.K. and imported $4,549,000,000—running a monthly surplus of $230,900,000. By contrast, the United States exported $130,369,500,000 in merchandise to the People’s Republic of China in 2017 and imported $505,597,100,000, resulting in the $375,227,500,000 deficit. In January, the United States exported $9,835,300,000 in merchandise to China and imported $45,788,000,000, resulting in the $35,952,800,000 monthly deficit. According to the CIA World Factbook, China had a population of 1,379,302,771 as of July 2017. That means that during 2017, the $130,369,500,000 in U.S. merchandise that the Chinese bought equaled about $94.52 per capita. The United Kingdom by contrast had a population of 64,769,452 as of July 2017, according to the CIA. That means that the $56,328,800,000 in U.S. merchandise that the British bought during 2017 equaled about $869.68 per capita.

The $869.68 per capita in U.S. goods the U.K. bought in 2017 was $775.16 (or about 820 percent) more than the $94.52 per capita that the Chinese bought. The Gross Domestic Product of the People’s Republic of China was about $23,120,000,000,000 in 2017, according to the CIA. That means the $130,369,500,000 in U.S. goods that China bought during the year equaled about 0.56 percent of China’s GDP. The Gross Domestic Product of the United Kingdom was about $2,880,000,000,000 in 2017, according to the CIA. That means the that the $56,328,800,000 in U.S. merchandise that the British bought during 2017 equaled about 1.96 percent of GDP.

-$35,952,800,000: U.S.-China Trade Deficit Set January Record
Click to expand...

waltky · Jul 14, 2018

Granny says, "Dat's right - China's cheatin' onna sly...

Ryan on Trade Deficit: ‘The Problem Is’ China is ‘Skirting the Rules’
July 13, 2018 | When asked about the potential danger a trade deficit with Communist China could pose to the United States, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) said the real problem is that China steals intellectual property and doesn’t play by the rules.

At the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Speaker Ryan, “The U.S. is running a record trade deficit with China -- $152 billion in the first five months of this year -- is that a problem for the United States?”

Speaker Ryan said, “I think what’s a problem for the United States is that China steals our intellectual property. I think a problem for the United States is China oversupplies commodities and dumps [them] on the foreign markets and trans-ships through third party countries.” “The problem is not that they’re playing by the rules and winning in a fair exchange,” he said. “The problem is they’re skirting the rules, and that’s not fair.”

As CNSNews.com reported on July 9, the U.S. trade deficit with China for the first five months of 2018 was $152,237,500,000 -- the United States exported $52,902,300,000 in goods to China while importing $205,139,800,000 in goods from China from January through May.

That means the dollar value of the goods the U.S. has bought from China so far this year is 3.87 times greater than the dollar value of the goods China has bought from the United States.

Ryan on Trade Deficit: ‘The Problem Is’ China is ‘Skirting the Rules’
Click to expand...

See also:

Cramer: I think Trump is winning the China trade war, and the US stock market backs me up

Fri, 13 July 2018

President Trump is beating China in a trade war that could soon escalate, CNBC’s Jim Cramer says.

“I think we're winning," the "Mad Money" host argues. "The market is saying we're winning.”

On Tuesday, the White House released a list of 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods.

President Donald Trump is beating China in a trade war that could soon escalate, CNBC’s Jim Cramer said on Friday. “I think we're winning," the "Mad Money" host argued. "The market is saying we're winning.” On Tuesday, the White House released a list of 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods, following through on Trump’s threat of additional punitive measures.

Tariffs of that magnitude, which now undergo a two-month review, would basically equal all the goods the U.S. imports from China, which promised retaliatory action and pledged to lodge a complaint with the World Trade Organization. Cramer said in a “Squawk on the Street” interview he disputes the argument that there are no winners in a trade war. “That's completely false." Look no further than the stock market for confirmation that the U.S. is getting the best of China on trade, he said.

The S&P 500 on Friday hit a four-month high after rallying nearly 1 percent in the prior session. The strong Thursday also saw the Nasdaq close at a record high. The S&P 500, Nasdaq and the Dow Jones Industrial Average were also tracking for their second straight week of gains. The market’s resilience follows the U.S. and China just a week ago exchanging $34 billion worth of tariffs, in addition to the steel and aluminum duties that were already in effect. “The intellectual property theft is not to be trifled with,” Cramer said, referring to the Chinese practice of forcing American companies to enter into joint ventures and share their technology in order to do business in the world’s second-largest economy.

That’s one of the reasons behind the Trump administration’s trade offensive against China. The White House also cites as unfair the $300 billion-plus annual trade deficit in goods that the U.S. has with China. On Thursday, prominent economist and former Morgan Stanley Asia chairman Stephen Roach told CNBC that Trump appears to be on track to lose in the trade war because the U.S. is hugely dependent on China "for low-cost goods to make ends meet for American consumers ... [and] to buy our Treasurys to fund our budget deficits." Those are things that can't be quantified in trade deficit numbers, Roach said.
Click to expand...

Cramer: I think Trump is winning the China trade war, and the US stock market backs me up
Click to expand...

EdwardBaiamonte · Jul 14, 2018

shoooot9 said: ↑

In order to reduce trade deficit we must compete with these nations. We can not allow foreign countries to steal some of our GDP.
Click to expand...

Trade deficits are mostly due to liberal taxes, liberal unions, and liberal regulations.

The affects are made worse by 30 million liberal illegals, and the liberal war on the families, schools and religion of America which render millions of Americans unfit for work.

expat_panama · Jul 14, 2018

EdwardBaiamonte said: ↑

...Trade deficits are mostly due to liberal taxes, liberal unions, and liberal...
Click to expand...

That's absolutely right when it comes to political trade balances. Political economic accounts are somewhat related to real life economic balances, just like global warming temperatures are vaguely like real life temperatures.

Except that even though the political kind is much better for yelling louder than everyone else, it's just not very good for serious stuff like say, earning a living.

Supposn · Jul 16, 2018

EdwardBaiamonte said: ↑

...Trade deficits are mostly due to liberal taxes, liberal unions, and liberal...
Click to expand...

expat_panama said: ↑

That's absolutely right when it comes to political trade balances. Political economic accounts are somewhat related to real life economic balances, just like global warming temperatures are vaguely like real life temperatures.

Except that even though the political kind is much better for yelling louder than everyone else, it's just not very good for serious stuff like say, earning a living.
Click to expand...

Expat_Panama, annual trade deficits, are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation's GDP and due to lesser domestic production, they do drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn said: ↑

... the amounts of nations' net trade balances effects upon their GDPs to some extents understate, (never overstate) their ACTUAL effects upon their nation's domestic production which is reflected by the GDP amount. ...
... Trade balance's economic importance.
Annual trade deficits indicate the nation has consumed more products than it has produced. That occurs when imports have “crowded out” the nation's domestic products from the marketplaces. The amount of a nation's net trade balance can only account for the prices of globally traded products effects upon their nations' GDP, but the products' prices do not reflect all of the commercial activity their production has generated.

There are enterprises in industries that we would suppose our unrelated, but they generate commercial activity between them. (e.g. a coffee shop or a pizza parlor near a producer of goods, or a cartoonist that that provides content for that producer's in-house posters or company bulletins are two of many examples. All production supporting or other commercial activity induced by production, are not reflected within the prices of those products. Of course all domestic commercial production activity contributes to their nation's GDP but if it's not reflected within the prices of globally traded products, we cannot account for the ALL of global trades' net effects upon domestic production due to the nation's net balance of international trade; but it's always to a greater extent than the net balance itself.

Governments often locate or modify or build public infrastructures more favorable to their jurisdictions' larger producers. Similarly, professional well-qualified advice, opinions, research, and development studies are some examples of production supporting goods and services that may be provided by governments, universities, and other organizations on much lesser than market or at no cost. They mutually benefit from promoting their national or local economies.

These are costs that contribute to their nations' domestic production, but are not fully paid for by the favored producers, and are not reflected in those producers' prices. To the extent that prices of globally traded goods are understated, they understate international trades' effects upon their nation's domestic production.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Economies of scale are more conspicuous in manufacturing, but they occur to some extent in almost all industries.
The lesser cost per unit of production is less available to U.S. steel producers because they have a smaller potential home market of USA enterprises purchasing steel. USA has lesser steel purchasers due to lower-priced imports made with steel.

Foreign low-wage producers of cheaper steel sell to customers both within and beyond their nation's borders. Thus, due to economies of scale, they further reduce the per unit costs of their cheaper priced steel.

[This is the reason that levying tariffs on steel, but not on products containing steel is illogical. We're increasing costs to USA purchasers of steel while their products must still compete with foreign imports. Thus, we're reducing the competitive position of USA steel purchasers and contributing to those enterprises' demise.

I also believe that it's illogical to discriminate among nations we import from. I believe in the concept of most favored nation. We should treat imports from all nations in an equitable manner and we should (if possible), retaliate against any nation that treats USA products with less favor than the products they import from any other nation. We should do the same when dealing with a pact of nations such as the European Common Market.]

Economies of scale indirectly contribute to the producing nations GDP by enabling them to increase their production and/or the quality of their production at lesser cost.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

We know that an enterprise's additional commercial activity can “resonate” with other seemingly less related enterprises and consequentially increase their nation's domestic production. An enterprise's production for export can, and often is such an additional commercial activity; we know international trade balances usually understate their nations net balances effects upon their nation's annual domestic production; We know that trade surplus nations' domestic productions are increased, and trade deficit nations' productions are reduced due to their annual net balances of trade; We know domestic production supports domestic employment.

Beyond the economic benefits of increasing their nations commercial activity and numbers of jobs, increasing domestic production often provides social, technical, and military benefits to their nation.

by producing, we gain familiarity, practice, and knowledge of the tools and materials we handle. So much of our economies' progress was due to research and development induced by USA's defense purchases. If our military has need for something fast, will it be delayed because a foreign government doesn't agree with our then current policy? What of military security for foreign produced equipment? ...

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

expat_panama · Jul 16, 2018

Supposn said: ↑

...trade deficits, are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation's GDP...
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Everyone knows that the formula for production is--

Production = Production&tradedeficit - Trade deficit

--and the bigger the trade deficit then the more production&tradedeficit get reduced.

Log in or Sign up

Trade Deficit

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

expat_panama Gold Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

frigidweirdo Platinum Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

expat_panama Gold Member

Supposn VIP Member

expat_panama Gold Member

Latest Threads

Enemy China Could Overwhelm U.S. Forces in Matter of Hours

The Stock Market Myth: Good News...Stocks Plunge!

Donald Trump the First Debtor: Federal debt is projected to increase by 38% in Trump's 4-year tenure

Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib Respond to PA Ban on LGBTQ Activities

If The Economy Is So Great Why Can't Most People Miss One Paycheck?

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Log in or Sign up

Trade Deficit

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

expat_panama Gold Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

frigidweirdo Platinum Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

expat_panama Gold Member

Supposn VIP Member

expat_panama Gold Member

Latest Threads

Enemy China Could Overwhelm U.S. Forces in Matter of Hours

The Stock Market Myth: Good News...Stocks Plunge!

Donald Trump the First Debtor: Federal debt is projected to increase by 38% in Trump's 4-year tenure

Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib Respond to PA Ban on LGBTQ Activities

If The Economy Is So Great Why Can't Most People Miss One Paycheck?

Share This Page

Useful Searches