USA’s chronic trade deficits

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Supposn, Mar 18, 2016.

  1. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,448
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +122
    USA’s chronic trade deficits.

    Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.

    There are only two presidential candidates that do actually reject and/or effectively avoid giving any credence to the problem of USA’s chronic global annual trade deficits. Nether Mr. Donald Trump or Senator Bernard Sanders offer any explicit proposal to significantly reduce USA’s annual global trade deficits.

    I’m a political orphan; there’s no candidate worthy of support.

    I’m among the proponents of USA adopting a specific unilateral Import Certificate policy for conducting our global trade of goods. It is a primarily market rather than government driven policy that’s entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

    Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
    and/or
    The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
    within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  2. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,671
    Thanks Received:
    1,530
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +7,737
    Real global trade has been stagnant and has even declined over the last 4 or 5 decades, despite all the noise over 'globalism' and the fantasies surrounding that hoax. The bulk of it is merely intra-company transfers, a company in a country just shipping itself stuff from an overseas operation; Ford Mexico shipping Ford America factory parts from its factories in Mexico to its factories in the U.S., for instance. The only beneficiaries are of course stockholders and financial speculators. It's just a front for labor racketeering and money laundering.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,448
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +122
    Picaro, Ford Mexico shipping Ford America factory parts from its factories in Mexico to its factories in the U.S. contribute to USA’s annual trade deficit of goods and effectively reduce USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and wages more than otherwise; (otherwise being if the USA had not experienced a deficit of our global trade that particular year). You apparently did not read much or didn’t consider the provided references.

    When did you last shop for a car or a mechanical or electrical appliance or any electronic products? It’s often difficult to find USA products.

    Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies; the effects of nations’ balances of trade are cumulative and the USA has consistently experienced annual trade deficits of goods in excess of a half-century.

    Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
    and/or
    The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
    within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  4. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    31,794
    Thanks Received:
    1,305
    Trophy Points:
    1,100
    Ratings:
    +4,304
    of course that's an obvious lie. Deficits are neutral although an increasingly uncompetitive economy is probably detrimental and leads to an increasing trade deficit.
    Intelligent conservatives and libertarians know to make the economy more competitive to then see the deficit shrink. To merely make deficits illegal is backwards. Do you have the IQ to understand?
     
  5. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,448
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +122

    Edward Baiamonte, if your logic leads you to believe that chronic annual trade deficits are harmless to their nations’ economies, then you must similarly conclude that termite infestation is harmless to a wooden barn.

    I’d be interested if you could point to some specific point made within the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade”, and refute the point with a compelling logical argument.

    I’m among the proponents for USA adopting a unilateral policy for our global trade. Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import certificates”.

    It is not pure free trade but it is absolutely pure competitive enterprises.


    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  6. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    31,794
    Thanks Received:
    1,305
    Trophy Points:
    1,100
    Ratings:
    +4,304
    as I said, deficits are neutral, a lack of competitiveness is harmful. A deficit is a symptom, not a cause. If you want a more competitive economy with a lower deficit then you want more capitalism. The obvious starting point is to eliminate the corporate tax which is a greater burden on our corporations than any other corporations in the world.
     
  7. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,448
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +122

    Edward Baiamonte, I’m among the proponents of a unilateral trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article, “Import Certificates.


    Any increase of foreign goods prices due to the trade policy would be passed onto their USA purchasers.

    Decreases of USA exported goods prices would be passed onto foreign purchasers of USA goods. (The proposal acts as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods).

    Prices of USA’s globally traded goods would be affected by our federal government but they will be substantially much more market rather than government determined. Prices of USA goods sold to USA purchasers would be entirely unaffected by this trade policy.


    If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the policy treats all industries equally.

    It does not discriminate between foreign nations; it treats them and all of their enterprises equally.

    It does not identify or discriminate among enterprises due to the nationality of enterprises’ owners, directors or shareholders.


    The proposal’s ONLY mandate upon any enterprise is upon importers of foreign goods into the USA; they’re shipments are subject to examination for assessment of value and they must surrender transferable Import Certificates with “face values” sufficient to cover those assessed values. (The surrendered certificates are then cancelled).


    The proposal would be of benefit to every USA enterprise producing goods that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods anywhere in the world.

    Other than an enterprise within the USA that is legally or otherwise bound not to deal with USA goods, the proposal does not hinder or favor any particular USA enterprise.


    Certainly the proposal would be to the advantage to USA’s economy; that’s why it’s proposed.

    It is not of any competitive advantage between USA enterprises. It does limit, (hopefully significantly limits) the extent of USA goods’ now great disadvantage to goods produced in lower wage nations.

    Other than that, what lack of competitiveness do you perceive between or among which entities?

    What I perceive is the significant reduction of USA’s chronic annual trade deficits that would be the reflection USA’s increased GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage due to the proposed trade policy.


    Respectfully Supposn
     
  8. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,448
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +122
    [QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 13908217, member: ...
    ... If you want a more competitive economy with a lower deficit then you want more capitalism. The obvious starting point is to eliminate the corporate tax which is a greater burden on our corporations than any other corporations in the world.[/QUOTE]


    EdwardBaiamonte, there’s no doubt that reducing taxes can improve the nation’s economy but how they are reduced is critical,

    I suppose that simply reducing all federal taxes by the same proportional rate would result in net detriment rather than improvement of USA’s social and economic conditions.
    There are innumerable proposed tax reform plans. A few of them would be of net improvement to our nation but too many that I’m aware of would (in my opinion) be economically net detrimental.

    You propose that reducing USA’s corporate taxes would make us more globally competitive. Reducing any specific federal tax entails to some extent modifying our current practices. Our alternatives would be increasing our other taxes and/or our federal budget deficits and/or our accumulating federal debt and/or re-prioritizing to reduce our net federal spending.

    Almost all of us our in favor of reducing taxes and/or spending until we need to agree upon which taxes to reduce and which government services we consider as expendable. I doubt if you and I are in complete agreement upon all of these alternatives.

    Those on the far left are opposed to an Import Certificate concept that is substantially market rather than government driven; those on the right are opposed in principle to anything less than pure free trade; but I do perceive a great deal of opportunity to negotiate political agreement for trade policy modification that would be to our nation’s net economic benefit.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  9. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    31,794
    Thanks Received:
    1,305
    Trophy Points:
    1,100
    Ratings:
    +4,304
    we get it, you're a simple dumb protectionist!! If you protect American business you make it less and less competitive rather than more and more competitive. A child can understand.
     
  10. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    31,794
    Thanks Received:
    1,305
    Trophy Points:
    1,100
    Ratings:
    +4,304
    again, a child can understand so why not you? Buying cheaper goods from
    China makes us richer than we would be if we had to buy more expensive goods from high wage countries. What don't you understand?
     

Share This Page