USA goods could be competitively priced

Isn't it the dollar exchange rate that determines the price of American work worldwide, by far?

no no Bangladesh China Vietnam are very poor countries meaning their workers earn a tiny amount and can afford to buy a tiny amount compared to Americans.
Because they earn a tiny amount they produce goods cheaply. Exchange rates have little or nothing to do with it.

Funny how you lump them altogether.

China is by far a wealthier country than either Vietnam or Bangladesh- and wages are much higher in China than either Bangladesh or Vietnam- which is why lots of labor intensive manufacturing- such as wearing apparel is moving from China to Vietnam or Bangladesh(or Pakistan or India)
 
but annual trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's economy.

How so?
Econ4Every1, exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of their nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic production (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP.

Trade deficits' drag upon their nation's GDP particular drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Says who.

Respectfully.

We have a huge trade deficit- and the lowest unemployment in years.
 
Isn't it the dollar exchange rate that determines the price of American work worldwide, by far?

no no Bangladesh China Vietnam are very poor countries meaning their workers earn a tiny amount and can afford to buy a tiny amount compared to Americans.
Because they earn a tiny amount they produce goods cheaply. Exchange rates have little or nothing to do with it.

If a Bangladesh guy and a USA guy sell the same thing internationally, and Bangladesh drops its currency exchange by a factor of 10, then the USA guy must work 10 times harder to survive. Then, if Bangladesh drops it by a 1000 ... You see what I mean?

Except- the Bangladesh guy has to pay for raw materials also- and if they drop the currency exchange factor by 10- then his raw materials are then 10 times as expensive.
 
Isn't it the dollar exchange rate that determines the price of American work worldwide, by far?
The USA trade deficit may be a problem, but why does the GDP matter? The GDP is an index that is valid only for the manufacturing sector. Only third world countries have dominant manufacturing sectors, it is negligibly small in the USA.
AnotherLife, you didn't read or you didn't understand the “import Certificates” article within Wikipedia?

Duh.

Since you didn't bother to provide a link- or any explanation of what you are so excited about.
 
The number of employable citizens that get locked out of the economy is sharply increasing.

it is measured by U6 and it does not show that at all !!! during recession u6 unemployment was 18% now its 8%. This is what we call sharply decreasing, not sharply increasing. Do you understand?

I am not sure what u6 is, but like all the others, I think it is designed to create a sort of market analysis for future trading. On the other hand, common sense observation dictates that nobody in like underemployment expects it easy to get back into their profession. So my point still stands.
 
. So the GDP is an empty index. This would be an extreme case, but the USA is not far from it and closing rapidly.
We have 130 million smart phone super computers in America so GDP is very widely spread.

You don't need to be an economist to see how rich the middle class got by looking at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 10 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, Go Pro Cameras, GPS navigation, consumer drones, color matched front loader washing machines, internet Facebook, Pandora, LTE-U, run flat tires, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 4K TV, Iphone 6+, burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, Tesla cars, private space flight, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Fit bits, Apple watches, Netflix boxes, jet skis, induction cooking, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012, hover boards, Ti Vi Bolt, Tesla cars, cloud storage, 4k Oled TV,
hover boards, Ring Doorbells, semi self-driving cars, Amazon Alexa,


The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

I think what you have proven in this post is the power of national automated underwriting that is purchased by the selling out of bank secrecy. What do you use to pay for all these things? Your earned income after the trade deficit?
 
But if we didn't have full employment and our resources weren't employed to their maximum extents, it's reasonable to ask why you believe that a substantially market driven policy to produce more goods, would have reduced our standards of living?

Adding obstacles to people freely buying cheaper goods reduces our standard of living.

Lesser GDP and numbers of jobs are “arbitrary bookkeeping entries”?

Trade deficit is an arbitrary bookkeeping entry.
Arbitrary and Capricious Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
...Arbitrary and Capricious Law and Legal Definition. ... There should be a clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law ...
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.google.com/search?q=arbitrary&ie=&oe=
adjective : arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ToddsterPatriot, annual trade surpluses certainly contribute, and deficits reduce their nations' annual gross domestic products. Regardless of your opinion, many, (I suppose the majority of credible) economists do consider GDP in relation to nations' living standards. Nations' GDPs or global balances of trade are not arbitrary statistics.
I suppose you contend restrictions upon explosive devices, military missiles and controlled substances sales or purchases all contribute to reducing our nation's living standards?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
But if we didn't have full employment and our resources weren't employed to their maximum extents, it's reasonable to ask why you believe that a substantially market driven policy to produce more goods, would have reduced our standards of living?

Adding obstacles to people freely buying cheaper goods reduces our standard of living.

Lesser GDP and numbers of jobs are “arbitrary bookkeeping entries”?

Trade deficit is an arbitrary bookkeeping entry.
Arbitrary and Capricious Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
...Arbitrary and Capricious Law and Legal Definition. ... There should be a clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law ...
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.google.com/search?q=arbitrary&ie=&oe=
adjective : arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ToddsterPatriot, annual trade surpluses certainly contribute, and deficits reduce their nations' annual gross domestic products. Regardless of your opinion, many, (I suppose the majority of credible) economists do consider GDP in relation to nations' living standards. Nations' GDPs or global balances of trade are not arbitrary statistics.
I suppose you contend restrictions upon explosive devices, military missiles and controlled substances sales or purchases all contribute to reducing our nation's living standards?

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, annual trade surpluses certainly contribute, and deficits reduce their nations' annual gross domestic products.

You bet. Absolutely.

Regardless of your opinion, many, (I suppose the majority of credible) economists do consider GDP in relation to nations' living standards.

And restrictions of cheap imports will reduce our living standards.

I suppose you contend restrictions upon explosive devices, military missiles and controlled substances sales or purchases all contribute to reducing our nation's living standards?

That's a nice straw man you built there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
 
ToddsterPatriot, annual trade surpluses certainly contribute, and deficits reduce their nations' annual gross domestic products.

You bet. Absolutely.

Regardless of your opinion, many, (I suppose the majority of credible) economists do consider GDP in relation to nations' living standards.

And restrictions of cheap imports will reduce our living standards. ...
ToddsterPatriot, the benefit of cheaper imported goods do not fully compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits of goods' consequential reductions of our GDPs which in turn is reflected by lesser than otherwise numbers of jobs. Economic effects due to our annual trade deficits most net detrimentally impact our wage earning families.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
ToddsterPatriot, annual trade surpluses certainly contribute, and deficits reduce their nations' annual gross domestic products.

You bet. Absolutely.

Regardless of your opinion, many, (I suppose the majority of credible) economists do consider GDP in relation to nations' living standards.

And restrictions of cheap imports will reduce our living standards. ...

I suppose you contend restrictions upon explosive devices, military missiles and controlled substances sales or purchases all contribute to reducing our nation's living standards?

That's a nice straw man you built there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
ToddsterPatriot, the benefit of cheaper imported goods do not fully compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits of goods' consequential reductions of our GDPs which in turn is reflected by lesser than otherwise numbers of jobs. Economic effects due to our annual trade deficits most net detrimentally impact our wage earning families.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, the benefit of cheaper imported goods do not fully compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits of goods' consequential reductions of our GDPs

If you say so.
 
but annual trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's economy.

How so?
Econ4Every1, exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of their nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic production (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP.

Trade deficits' drag upon their nation's GDP particular drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn


Thank's for getting back to me, Apologies for not getting back sooner....

Exports send things of real value out of the country (wood, steel, food, water, technology) in trade for foreign credits. US companies can hold those credits abroad or attempt to exchange them for US dollars (if the US is the exporter in this example) in order to make purchases here in the US.

Now I ask you how does earning foreign dollars help US citizens in ways that can be done right now?

Does this have to do with employment? If the US became a net exporter, the only way to compete against the likes of China and India would be massive automation. THe automation industry would do well, but there wouldn't be enough to employ everyone....

For those that would have a job in a US economy based on exports, where does the money come from to pay them? We can't pay them in dollars earned from selling goods in foreign economies. An exchange of US dollars would need to take place to pay domestic workers and pay out profits.

If there were a massive shift in the balance of trade to an export-based economy, at first there would be a drawdown of US dollar accounts abroad. Right now, altogether foreign interests hold about ~$15 trillion dollars that foreign interests are saving in US dollar Forex accounts, Treasury account ans cash:

FOREX Reserves:

List of countries by foreign-exchange reserves - Wikipedia

And about $4 Treasury securities:

http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

This list isn't definitive, it does not include physical cash (this report touches on it):

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/1996/1096lead.pdf

If I'm reading it right there is at least $1 trillion in physical cash outside the US.

Now, these holdings are broken into two basic categories, interest-bearing, and non-interest bearing. Similar to "savings" and "checking". Cash is cash and considered non-interest bearing.

Ok, so the point is, there is a hell of a lot of money held by foreign interests, both government and private. Swapping our economy to an export-based economy would basically export goods and services and for many years would begin to import US dollars held abroad as the demand for US dollars would increase (relative to foreign dollars in nations that net-export from the US).

The result would be less need for foreign governments to hold large US dollar accounts in either US Treasuries or US dollar accounts.

If the US swapped to a net exporter to the majority of the world, at first this would probably work out pretty well as foreign nations liquidate their US dollar accounts. Another consequence would be a massive drop-off in the demand for US Treasury securities, though that would likely be off-set by an increase in export income.

In the end, the real question is, do you want real goods and services and let other nations hold and save US dollars, or do you want to create and sell things of real value to other nations and hold and save foreign dollars?

As far as unemployment is concerned (effect on GDP), that's purely a political choice We can create and spend dollars equal to the number of dollars net saved outside the US (measured by Treasury holdings) with very little if any inflation if spent slowly enough (it took foreign nations many years to stockpile trillions of US dollars) and on the kinds of things that put the the bottom 50% of Americans to work.
 
, the only way to compete against the likes of China and India would be massive automation..
totally gibberish of course. We do compete with them every day and we have 96% employment and we can afford 130 million iphone supercomputer toys.
We could however compete much better if we eliminated the liberal corporate tax , the highest in the world, eliminated liberal unions, liberal budget deficits, and absurd trade agreements.
 
In the end, the real question is, do you want real goods and services and let other nations hold and save US dollars, or do you want to create and sell things of real value to other nations and hold and save foreign dollars?
.
real question is do you want free market to answer these questions or do you want a few libcommies in govt to make wild guesses to answer these questions and then impose their guesses on us at gunpoint?
 
, the only way to compete against the likes of China and India would be massive automation..
totally gibberish of course. We do compete with them every day and we have 96% employment and we can afford 130 million iphone supercomputer toys.
We could however compete much better if we eliminated the liberal corporate tax , the highest in the world, eliminated liberal unions, liberal budget deficits, and absurd trade agreements.


Allow me to rephrase that statement as I apparently failed to communicate what I meant by that statement.

If we became a net exporter we would be competing to sell our exports to the world. Something that China and India, two nations that currently have about 1/3rd of the world's population, already do.

Can we compete on price?
Can we compete on quality?

In order to compete on price, we'd need to automate reducing the cost of labor. Even at minimum wage, our labor costs would be much higher than the nations we're competing against.
I can't imagine that the world would move away from low cost in order to acquire better quality as China already does a pretty good job with quality.

Tell me, how would the US compete to sell products to the rest of the world in competition with China and India?
 
As far as unemployment is concerned (effect on GDP), that's purely a political choice We can create and spend dollars equal to the number of dollars net saved outside the US (measured by Treasury holdings) with very little if any inflation if spent slowly enough (it took foreign nations many years to stockpile trillions of US dollars) and on the kinds of things that put the the bottom 50% of Americans to work.

total gibberish:
1) they are working thats why employment is 96%
2) we already have inflation so spending more to get people to work who already have jobs would cause absurd inflation for nothing and opposed to common sense fed mandate.
3) creating make work jobs with make work money would cause a bubble that would burst. Sustainability comes from the free market.i
 
In the end, the real question is, do you want real goods and services and let other nations hold and save US dollars, or do you want to create and sell things of real value to other nations and hold and save foreign dollars?
.
real question is do you want free market to answer these questions or do you want a few libcommies in govt to make wild guesses to answer these questions and then impose their guesses on us at gunpoint?


That really isn't the subject of this thread or the nature of my response to Suposn. He claimed that trade deficits are harmful. I don't see how your comment addresses that or anything I've said.
 
Can we compete on price?
Can we compete on quality?
we already do thats why employment is 96% and we can afford 130 million smart phones and why our share of world manufacturing has not changed much. we could compete far better still if we eliminated liberal interference in free market. Libcommies They interferred in East Germany more than West Germany; more in North Korea than South Korea. Do you know of these countries?
 
As far as unemployment is concerned (effect on GDP), that's purely a political choice We can create and spend dollars equal to the number of dollars net saved outside the US (measured by Treasury holdings) with very little if any inflation if spent slowly enough (it took foreign nations many years to stockpile trillions of US dollars) and on the kinds of things that put the the bottom 50% of Americans to work.

total gibberish:
1) they are working thats why employment is 96%
2) we already have inflation so spending more to get people to work who already have jobs would cause absurd inflation for nothing and opposed to common sense fed mandate.
3) creating make work jobs with make work money would cause a bubble that would burst. Sustainability comes from the free market.i

1) It's funny how U3 measurement of employment is embraced when it's convenient.
The unemployment rate says nothing about the quality of those jobs.

2) Inflation is directed by the Fed's monetary policy. We could have deflation if the Fed so chose. In other words, it's possible to increase spending without increasing inflation.

3) I don't recognize the term "make work" jobs.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top