Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

[Widdekind]

i have difficulty following all the text and graphics.

population = potential labor force + kids (<15)
= active labor force + inactive labor force + kids
= (employed + unemployed) + "discouraged" + kids
= working + looking + drinking + kids​

The following figure plots ratios, of employment-related levels (thousands of persons), to total population levels (thousands of persons):

• potential labor force
• active labor force
• "working" labor force (E)
• "looking" labor force (UE)

Roughly, every statistic has stabilized since the 1990s. The potential labor force (working age population) has been about 75% of the total population; the active labor force has been about 50% of the total population. As welfare has increased, the number of inactive "discouraged" workers has increased (slightly).

 

[Widdekind]

the following figure plots the ratio of inactive "discouraged" workers to total population, lefthand scale; and real net personal welfare (transfers - taxes), righthand scale (2005 USD). Since 2000, real net personal welfare has increased to over $1T; and the inactive "discouraged" potential workforce has increased by 3% of the total US population, or by nearly 10 million persons. Increasing welfare has "inactivated" 10 million potential workers.

The employment rate ( "working" / "working + looking" ) represents the ratio, of demand-to-supply of labor. Generally, prices reflect ratios of demand-to-supply. So, the employment rate, representing the ratio of demand-to-supply of labor, is reflected in the price of labor, i.e. is positively correlated, to real wages. When employment rates rise (fall) by +1%, real wages per capita rise (fall) by +2%. So, if welfare was reduced, "activating" the 3% of the total US population on the dole; then the employment rate would fall by about 6% (the active workforce is only half the total population); and then real wages would fall by 12%.

Now, total wages are about $7T. So, cutting welfare would save a trillion dollars in taxes; and reduce wages by another trillion dollars, making US workers more competitive compared to foreign competition. Currently, the US public is paying a huge amount (welfare), to restrict the active labor supply, to inflate wages, to be payed another huge amount more. Such resembles a labor cartel.

Currently, net negative taxes of persons offset positive taxes of corporations. That is, personal taxes + business taxes = welfare (roughly). Logically, the following would be monetarily equivalent:

• eliminate personal + corporate taxes
  
• eliminate personal + corporate welfare (transfers + subsidies)

The US private sector would benefit from no direct taxes; and from more competitive labor markets. Over $2T could potentially be saved, swamping (say) any trade deficit in volume (in size). Government would be funded by remaining indirect (sales) taxes. If Americans are serious about fighting trade deficits, then they will have to compete with cheaper foreign products, to increase US exports.

 

[Supposn]

...eliminate personal + corporate taxes ...

Widdekind, what would our sources of federal revenue be if we eliminate personal and corporate taxes?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Excerpted from Wikipedia’s article entitled “Balance of trade”:

== Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP.

===== Annual trade surpluses are immediate and direct additions to their nations’ GDPs.

To some extent exports’ induce additional increases to the GDPs that are not reflected within the export products’ prices; thus trade surpluses contributions to their GDP are generally understated.

Products’ prices generally reflect their producers’ production supporting expenditures. Producers often benefit from some production supporting goods and services at lesser or no cost to the producers.

For example governments may deliberately locate or increase the capacity of their infrastructure, or provide other additional considerations to retain or attract producers within their own jurisdictions. Nations' schools’ and colleges' curriculums may provide job applicants specifically suited to the producer’s needs; or provide specialized research and development. Nations’ entire productions contribute to their GDPs but unless those goods and services are entirely reflected within globally traded products, theses other export supporting productions are not entirely identified and attributed to their nations’ global trade and they do additionally contribute to their nation's economy.

====== Annual trade deficits are immediate and indirect reducers of their nations’ GDPs.
Trade deficits make no net contribution to their nations’ GDPs but the importing nations indirectly deny themselves of the benefits earned by producing nations; (refer to “Annual trade surpluses are immediate and direct additions to their nations’ GDPs”). Among what’s being denied is familiarity with methods, practices, manipulation of tools, materials and fabrication processes.

The economic differences between domestic and imported goods occur prior to the goods entry within the final purchasers' nations. After domestic goods have reached their producers shipping dock or imported goods have been unloaded on to the importing nation’s cargo vessel or entry port’s dock, similar goods have similar economic attributes.

Although supporting products not reflected within the prices of specific items are all captured within the producing nation’s GDP, those supporting but not reflected within prices of globally traded goods are not attributed to nations' global trade. Trade surpluses' contributions and trade deficits' detriments to their nation's GDPs are understated. The entire benefits of production are earned by the exporting nations and denied to the importing nation.

(Refer to next post entitled “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs.

Nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations’ GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations’ entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.
Trade deficits are particularly detrimental to their nations’ families dependent upon salaries and wages; (that includes the overwhelming majority of USA’s middle income earners).

To an extent nations’ lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products. It is also conceivable for a nation’s laborers’ aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit’s detriment to their GDP. Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.


Unfortunately the USA’s trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and has not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills so superior as to eliminate our trade deficits of goods that have been occurring each year in excess of a half century’s duration.

For a proposed remedy, google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
or refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...significantly-reduce-usa-s-trade-deficit.html

Respectfully, Supposn
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excerpted from Wikipedia’s article entitled “Balance of trade”:

== Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP.

===== Annual trade surpluses are immediate and direct additions to their nations’ GDPs.

To some extent exports’ induce additional increases to the GDPs that are not reflected within the export products’ prices; thus trade surpluses contributions to their GDP are generally understated.

Products’ prices generally reflect their producers’ production supporting expenditures. Producers often benefit from some production supporting goods and services at lesser or no cost to the producers.

For example governments may deliberately locate or increase the capacity of their infrastructure, or provide other additional considerations to retain or attract producers within their own jurisdictions. Nations' schools’ and colleges' curriculums may provide job applicants specifically suited to the producer’s needs; or provide specialized research and development. Nations’ entire productions contribute to their GDPs but unless those goods and services are entirely reflected within globally traded products, theses other export supporting productions are not entirely identified and attributed to their nations’ global trade and they do additionally contribute to their nation's economy.

====== Annual trade deficits are immediate and indirect reducers of their nations’ GDPs.
Trade deficits make no net contribution to their nations’ GDPs but the importing nations indirectly deny themselves of the benefits earned by producing nations; (refer to “Annual trade surpluses are immediate and direct additions to their nations’ GDPs”). Among what’s being denied is familiarity with methods, practices, manipulation of tools, materials and fabrication processes.

The economic differences between domestic and imported goods occur prior to the goods entry within the final purchasers' nations. After domestic goods have reached their producers shipping dock or imported goods have been unloaded on to the importing nation’s cargo vessel or entry port’s dock, similar goods have similar economic attributes.

Although supporting products not reflected within the prices of specific items are all captured within the producing nation’s GDP, those supporting but not reflected within prices of globally traded goods are not attributed to nations' global trade. Trade surpluses' contributions and trade deficits' detriments to their nation's GDPs are understated. The entire benefits of production are earned by the exporting nations and denied to the importing nation.

(Refer to next post entitled “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs”.

Respectfully, Supposn

Trade deficits make no net contribution to their nations’ GDPs

If your claim were true, we could boost our GDP by immediately cutting off all oil imports.

If we did that, gas prices would skyrocket and unemployment would soar, despite your simplistic claim.

 

[Supposn]

Trade deficits make no net contribution to their nations’ GDPs

If your claim were true, we could boost our GDP by immediately cutting off all oil imports.
If we did that, gas prices would skyrocket and unemployment would soar, despite your simplistic claim.

Although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.
I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trade deficits make no net contribution to their nations’ GDPs

If your claim were true, we could boost our GDP by immediately cutting off all oil imports.
If we did that, gas prices would skyrocket and unemployment would soar, despite your simplistic claim.

Although trade deficits are detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP, federal intervention of trade involving scarce minerals (which are unfeasible to manufacture) is an unjustifiable risk that would likely be contra productive.
I do not argue with facts and circumstance that we’re unable to change.

Respectfully, Supposn

Oil imports aren't detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP.

 

[Supposn]

Oil imports aren't detrimental to USA’s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP.

Mittigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs.

Toddster Patriot, nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations’ GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations’ entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.
Trade deficits are particularly detrimental to their nations’ families dependent upon salaries and wages; (that includes the overwhelming majority of USA’s middle income earners).

To an extent nations’ lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products. It is also conceivable for a nation’s laborers’ aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit’s detriment to their GDP. Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.
Unfortunately the USA’s trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and has not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills so superior as to eliminate our trade deficits of goods that have been occurring each year in excess of a half century’s duration.

Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade“.

For a remedy, refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...significantly-reduce-usa-s-trade-deficit.html
or
google Wikipedia’s article “Import Certificates”.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oil imports aren't detrimental to USA&#8217;s numbers of jobs, median wage and GDP.

Mittigating trade deficits&#8217; detriments to their nations&#8217; numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs.

Toddster Patriot, nations&#8217; annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations&#8217; GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations&#8217; entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.
Trade deficits are particularly detrimental to their nations&#8217; families dependent upon salaries and wages; (that includes the overwhelming majority of USA&#8217;s middle income earners).

To an extent nations&#8217; lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products. It is also conceivable for a nation&#8217;s laborers&#8217; aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit&#8217;s detriment to their GDP. Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.
Unfortunately the USA&#8217;s trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and has not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills so superior as to eliminate our trade deficits of goods that have been occurring each year in excess of a half century&#8217;s duration.

Refer to the paragraphs entitled &#8220;Trade balances&#8217; affects upon their nation&#8217;s GDP&#8221; within the Wikipedia article entitled &#8220;Balance of trade&#8220;.

For a remedy, refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...significantly-reduce-usa-s-trade-deficit.html
or
google Wikipedia&#8217;s article &#8220;Import Certificates&#8221;.

Respectfully Supposn

Toddster Patriot, nations&#8217; annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations&#8217; GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations&#8217; entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.

Which is a larger number, the subtraction from the GDP calculation of the value of oil imports or the value of all the products and services that are made possible by those oil imports?

Your simplistic reliance on the first number and your failure to account for the second number makes your simplistic claim a target of ridicule, not a law of economics.

 

[Kimura]

Imports have benefits and exports have real costs. Our trade deficit directly improves our standard of living. Any jobs which are lost in the process are a result of taxes being to high for a certain level of government spending, not because of our imports.

The US runs a trade deficit for the same reason you a run a deficit with your local Foodtown or Pathmark. It's more efficient for us to purchase goods and services produced in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China and others places than it is to make it here. It's saves money and time and let's America do what it does best: create the world's largest economy based on information technology, technology, finance and services. The foreign sector builds the automobiles and textiles, we code the software to help run their factories. We also source the capital (US credit creation) to help their economies grow.

Let me ask the trade deficit cult members some questions: do you grow all your own food? Did you build your own home or condominium? Did you build your own power plant that generates electricity? Do you provide your own medical care? Did you make that movie you saw last week?

Chances are if you don't do all or some of these things you most likely run a defict of trade with many producers, firms and vendors that provide you with the real goods and services you require to live your life.

 

[Supposn]

Toddster Patriot, nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations’ GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations’ entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.

Which is a larger number, the subtraction from the GDP calculation of the value of oil imports or the value of all the products and services that are made possible by those oil imports?

Your simplistic reliance on the first number and your failure to account for the second number makes your simplistic claim a target of ridicule, not a law of economics.

Choosing what’s economically preferable rather than political purity.

Toddster Patriot, it is of no consequences as to what portion of our trade deficit are attributable to scarce or precious minerals integral to USA’s globally traded goods that would be explicitly itemized on a list of such minerals.

We should not jeopardize USA’s adoption of the transferable Import policy due to disagreements regarding a carbon fuel issue. That’s a separate issue and should be or not be treated dependent upon whatever our nation determines as our carbon fuel policy.

If precious minerals integral to goods were not eliminated from the assessed value of our globally traded goods, entrepreneurs would export gem encrusted paper weights cast in gold to acquire all of the Import Certificates they want. That would undermine the purpose of eliminating our trade deficit of goods assessed values. (Additionally gem stones, pearls and precious metals are small and more easily smuggled).

The purpose of the Import Certificate policy is to reduce USA's annual trade deficit’s immediate detrimental effects upon the numbers of our jobs and their median wage which is reflected in lesser than otherwise annual GDPs. Precious minerals have a proportionally small effect of our annual trade deficits’ detriments to numbers of jobs and their median wage or our annual GDPs.

It is financially feasible to artificially create acceptable substitutes for some but not all minerals.
We do not wish to inhibit our global trade for scarce minerals for which there are no acceptable substitutes and thus inhibit USA’s jobs due to producing anything that requires those minerals.

Although ALL of USA’s annual trade deficits of goods are immediately detrimental to their nation’s GDPs, we should not decrease or jeopardize any net portion of an Import Certificates policy’s benefit to its nation by insisting upon purity of policy rather optimizing the nation’s net benefits due to the policy; (i.e. “don’t throw out the baby along with the bath water”).

You quoted post #305, “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to GDP; did you read and consider it or the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade“?

For a remedy, refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...significantly-reduce-usa-s-trade-deficit.html
or goggle Wikipedia’s article “Import Certificates”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[oldfart]

i have difficulty following all the text and graphics.

I'm afraid that's pretty obvious. You would do well to put FRED aside for now, which generally requires some knowledge of the statistics you are using, and go back to BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). A large part of your problem is that rather than using established definitions you are making up some of your own and confusing yourself.

population = potential labor force + kids (<15)
= active labor force + inactive labor force + kids
= (employed + unemployed) + "discouraged" + kids
= working + looking + drinking + kids

The only real categories you allude to are "population", "employed", "unemployed" and "discouraged" for which there are BLS definitions. There is no "potential labor force", "active" or "inactive" labor force, "kids" is part of the population definition (you also left out the "civilian" and "non-institutional" qualifiers) and the drinking are in my observation part of the employed as well as the unemployed. Humor is a great thing, except when you try to make it a substitute for looking the real stuff up.

The following figure plots ratios, of employment-related levels (thousands of persons), to total population levels (thousands of persons):

• potential labor force
• active labor force
• "working" labor force (E)
• "looking" labor force (UE)

Roughly, every statistic has stabilized since the 1990s.

Obviously since you aren't using BLS definitions you have no clue to what the graphs mean. The last statement is incorrect in every possible way, unless it is completely meaningless, which is probable since you never explain what you mean by "stabilize".
In what sense is the greatest fall in the employment/population ratio since 1946 stable?

The potential labor force (working age population) has been about 75% of the total population; the active labor force has been about 50% of the total population. As welfare has increased, the number of inactive "discouraged" workers has increased (slightly).

Wrong on every count. Perhaps you just aren't used to the scales being used.

Go to the Monthly Labor Report on the BLS website. Start with Summary Table A and Tables A-1 and A-15 and the historic table generator at the bottom of the page. Also read the FAQ and Technical Notes. If you have questions or need help, post or message me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot, nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental upon their numbers of jobs and median wage which are reflected within the nations’ GDPs. Those detriments are immediate and their drag upon their nations’ entire economies exceeds the amounts of the trade deficits themselves.

Which is a larger number, the subtraction from the GDP calculation of the value of oil imports or the value of all the products and services that are made possible by those oil imports?

Your simplistic reliance on the first number and your failure to account for the second number makes your simplistic claim a target of ridicule, not a law of economics.

Choosing what’s economically preferable rather than political purity.

Toddster Patriot, it is of no consequences as to what portion of our trade deficit are attributable to scarce or precious minerals integral to USA’s globally traded goods that would be explicitly itemized on a list of such minerals.

We should not jeopardize USA’s adoption of the transferable Import policy due to disagreements regarding a carbon fuel issue. That’s a separate issue and should be or not be treated dependent upon whatever our nation determines as our carbon fuel policy.

If precious minerals integral to goods were not eliminated from the assessed value of our globally traded goods, entrepreneurs would export gem encrusted paper weights cast in gold to acquire all of the Import Certificates they want. That would undermine the purpose of eliminating our trade deficit of goods assessed values. (Additionally gem stones, pearls and precious metals are small and more easily smuggled).

The purpose of the Import Certificate policy is to reduce USA's annual trade deficit’s immediate detrimental effects upon the numbers of our jobs and their median wage which is reflected in lesser than otherwise annual GDPs. Precious minerals have a proportionally small effect of our annual trade deficits’ detriments to numbers of jobs and their median wage or our annual GDPs.

It is financially feasible to artificially create acceptable substitutes for some but not all minerals.
We do not wish to inhibit our global trade for scarce minerals for which there are no acceptable substitutes and thus inhibit USA’s jobs due to producing anything that requires those minerals.

Although ALL of USA’s annual trade deficits of goods are immediately detrimental to their nation’s GDPs, we should not decrease or jeopardize any net portion of an Import Certificates policy’s benefit to its nation by insisting upon purity of policy rather optimizing the nation’s net benefits due to the policy; (i.e. “don’t throw out the baby along with the bath water”).

You quoted post #305, “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to GDP; did you read and consider it or the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade“?

For a remedy, refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...significantly-reduce-usa-s-trade-deficit.html
or goggle Wikipedia’s article “Import Certificates”.

Respectfully, Supposn

We should not jeopardize USA’s adoption of the transferable Import policy due to disagreements regarding a carbon fuel issue.

That will never happen, whether I point out your error, or not.

 

[oldfart]

...eliminate personal + corporate taxes ...

Widdekind, what would our sources of federal revenue be if we eliminate personal and corporate taxes?

Respectfully, Supposn

Widdekind is under the illusion that he can make up his own definitions of things and that accepted statistical series will conform themselves to his new meaning. They do not. Most people grow out of this kind of thinking by age 10 or so. I image he also has play armies with which to take over the world and a fantasy football team. All made up with statistics from legit sources. But the results are still fantasy.

 

[Supposn]

Trade balances between the states.

Kimura, there’s no differences between nations and lesser governments’ jurisdictions trade deficits.
The Constitutional Congress gathered to bind our entire nation together and determined that they could not do so if each state were to conduct their interstate commerce in a manner that would serve only their own best interests.

Regardless of what any state’s government considers to be to their own best interests, our states are constitutionally bound to federal supreme jurisdiction of interstate and international commerce.

Nothing has changed. Just as it was then and currently if you choose to purchase products from out of state, this decreases the numbers of jobs, median wages and tax revenues to some extent within your own state. For the sake of national unity and our entire national economy, (regardless of the advantages or disadvantages as it’s applied to individual states), we're all under supreme federal jurisdiction with regard to international and interstate commerce.

I have nothing against the Chinese government and their population but I’m unwilling to diminish USA’s numbers of jobs or median wage for the sake of other nations that are unwilling or unable to better improve the purchasing powers of their nations’ laborers.

When I choose to purchase anything, I do not diminish my income rate, but my purchases to some extent affect the enterprises and the political jurisdictions where I choose to or choose not to purchase products.

Your example of what you choose to describe as my trade deficit is a false analogy. My expenditures do not diminish my income rate or my job opportunities. People may have financial surpluses or deficits; they do not have trade deficits.

Respectfully, Supposn