USA’s chronic trade deficits

[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 1

Respectfully, Supposn
Ed is a paid conservative tool. Paid to post whatever the con talking points are. And about to start with his unprovoked personal insults of you. In my opinion, Ed is completely incapable of conversation. He simply posts drivel and causes posts to end by boring the pants off of rational people.

Actually, simply lowering taxes doe not usually help an economy. Because, when you lower taxes congress will require that you cut spending. And when you cut spending, you cut jobs. Increasing unemployment begets more of the same.
That is the theory. To wash the theory against history, go back to 1981. Reagan had an unemployment rate of around 7.2% when he did a huge tax cut. In less than 2 years the ue rate hit 10.8%. Second highest in US history. Scared Reagan's team greatly. So, did they continue to follow "Reaganomics" ? No, actually they became believers in Keynesian principles. The economic team:
1. Increased taxes 11 times.
2. Used sounding for economic stimulus, spending more than all previous presidents in US history, COMBINED. And tripled the national debt.
3. Saw the economy recover.
Ed is simply pushing the conservative economic plan. Which is: REDUCE TAXES.
 
Last edited:
when you lower taxes congress will require that you cut spending. And when you cut spending, you cut jobs.

Actually dear we are $20 trillion in debt because Congress did not cut spending. What planet have you been on? So, no cut in spending and still we have 10% U6 unemployment and lower wages for those who work!!

Got another theory that will be less embarrassing for you?
 
[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 1

Respectfully, Supposn
Ed is a paid conservative tool. Paid to post whatever the con talking points are. And about to start with his unprovoked personal insults of you. In my opinion, Ed is completely incapable of conversation. He simply posts drivel and causes posts to end by boring the pants off of rational people.

Actually, simply lowering taxes doe not usually help an economy. Because, when you lower taxes congress will require that you cut spending. And when you cut spending, you cut jobs. Increasing unemployment begets more of the same.
That is the theory. To wash the theory against history, go back to 1981. Reagan had an unemployment rate of around 7.2% when he did a huge tax cut. In less than 2 years the ue rate hit 10.8%. Second highest in US history. Scared Reagan's team greatly. So, did they continue to follow "Reaganomics" ? No, actually they became believers in Keynesian principles. The economic team:
1. Increased taxes 11 times.
2. Used sounding for economic stimulus, spending more than all previous presidents in US history, COMBINED. And tripled the national debt.
3. Saw the economy recover.
Ed is simply pushing the conservative economic plan. Which is: REDUCE TAXES.
 
[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 1

Respectfully, Supposn
Ed is a paid conservative tool. Paid to post whatever the con talking points are. And about to start with his unprovoked personal insults of you. In my opinion, Ed is completely incapable of conversation. He simply posts drivel and causes posts to end by boring the pants off of rational people.

Actually, simply lowering taxes doe not usually help an economy. Because, when you lower taxes congress will require that you cut spending. And when you cut spending, you cut jobs. Increasing unemployment begets more of the same.
That is the theory. To wash the theory against history, go back to 1981. Reagan had an unemployment rate of around 7.2% when he did a huge tax cut. In less than 2 years the ue rate hit 10.8%. Second highest in US history. Scared Reagan's team greatly. So, did they continue to follow "Reaganomics" ? No, actually they became believers in Keynesian principles. The economic team:
1. Increased taxes 11 times.
2. Used sounding for economic stimulus, spending more than all previous presidents in US history, COMBINED. And tripled the national debt.
3. Saw the economy recover.
Ed is simply pushing the conservative economic plan. Which is: REDUCE TAXES.
Now, being a paid conservative tool, ed will use an unemployment type not used over the years by the gov to show an accurate picture of unemployment. Instead he will use some other method. The common menthod used is U3, which has been used by all administrations and the department of Labor for many, many, many years. No other method is used as a general unemployment rate barometer. Except by con tools, who pick a method that shows a much higher rate, and makes the unemployment rate look comparatively high. It is not high, of course. It is, as February, the current U3 rate was 4.9%. Our economists to not publish, for general use, the U6 rate. Never have. Only con tools with an agenda, use that rate. And then only when the other party is in the white house.
 
[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 1

Respectfully, Supposn
Ed is a paid conservative tool. Paid to post whatever the con talking points are. And about to start with his unprovoked personal insults of you. In my opinion, Ed is completely incapable of conversation. He simply posts drivel and causes posts to end by boring the pants off of rational people.

Actually, simply lowering taxes doe not usually help an economy. Because, when you lower taxes congress will require that you cut spending. And when you cut spending, you cut jobs. Increasing unemployment begets more of the same.
That is the theory. To wash the theory against history, go back to 1981. Reagan had an unemployment rate of around 7.2% when he did a huge tax cut. In less than 2 years the ue rate hit 10.8%. Second highest in US history. Scared Reagan's team greatly. So, did they continue to follow "Reaganomics" ? No, actually they became believers in Keynesian principles. The economic team:
1. Increased taxes 11 times.
2. Used sounding for economic stimulus, spending more than all previous presidents in US history, COMBINED. And tripled the national debt.
3. Saw the economy recover.
Ed is simply pushing the conservative economic plan. Which is: REDUCE TAXES.
Now, being a paid conservative tool, ed will use an unemployment type not used over the years by the gov to show an accurate picture of unemployment. Instead he will use some other method. The common menthod used is U3, which has been used by all administrations and the department of Labor for many, many, many years. No other method is used as a general unemployment rate barometer. Except by con tools, who pick a method that shows a much higher rate, and makes the unemployment rate look comparatively high. It is not high, of course. It is, as February, the current U3 rate was 4.9%. Our economists to not publish, for general use, the U6 rate. Never have. Only con tools with an agenda, use that rate. And then only when the other party is in the white house.

u6 of course is very important as is work force participation. Both are constantly used by Fed as evidence of a very weak economy featuring 1% growth, lower wages , and the need of being propped up by 0% interest rates. This is worst recovery since Great Depression.
 
, I’m among the proponents of a unilateral trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article, “Import Certificates.

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.

Ed is an enigma. He is a con tool trying to make logical arguments without any ability or desire to be logical. So, in ed's defense, I firmly believe he is a congenital idiot. And congenital suggests he is not capable of change. It is just plain bad luck.
 
I’m among the proponents of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

The unilateral trade policy would eliminate or almost eliminate USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and their drags upon our GDPs. (anything that’s a drag upon our GDP is also a drag upon our numbers of jobs which in turn is somewhat of a drag upon their wages’ purchasing powers.

We all benefit from cheaper imported products but they do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits’ net detriments to our economy.


A unilateral USA Import Certificate policy can induce goods (for which production costs were marginally too high), to become viable candidates for USA production and sales in USA’s domestic markets; additionally, those USA produced goods can then be viable candidates for global sales.

In the cases of products that are now produced in the USA, that’s precisely what would soon occur after the USA enacts the Import Certificate policy. In the cases where the cost of products imported into the USA are no longer less than the estimated cost of USA production, it’s expected that sooner or later those products will be produced in the USA.


An Import Certificate policy can be of some advantage to or reduces the disadvantage of any USA enterprise, (i.e. including USA subsidiaries of foreign enterprises) that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods. This is particularly true of USA goods producing enterprises that compete with foreign products within USA’s domestic markets.

Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.


Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
I’m among the proponents of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

The unilateral trade policy would eliminate or almost eliminate USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and their drags upon our GDPs. (anything that’s a drag upon our GDP is also a drag upon our numbers of jobs which in turn is somewhat of a drag upon their wages’ purchasing powers.

We all benefit from cheaper imported products but they do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits’ net detriments to our economy.


A unilateral USA Import Certificate policy can induce goods (for which production costs were marginally too high), to become viable candidates for USA production and sales in USA’s domestic markets; additionally, those USA produced goods can then be viable candidates for global sales.

In the cases of products that are now produced in the USA, that’s precisely what would soon occur after the USA enacts the Import Certificate policy. In the cases where the cost of products imported into the USA are no longer less than the estimated cost of USA production, it’s expected that sooner or later those products will be produced in the USA.


An Import Certificate policy can be of some advantage to or reduces the disadvantage of any USA enterprise, (i.e. including USA subsidiaries of foreign enterprises) that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods. This is particularly true of USA goods producing enterprises that compete with foreign products within USA’s domestic markets.

Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.


Respectfully, Supposn

in short, the typical liberal wants to start trade wars like the ones that caused the Great Depression and WW2
 
The United States constitution grants international treaties with the federal legal status equal to all other of our constitution’s provisions which are of much greater status than normal federal statutes. USA has no global trade agreements.

Furthermore, USA’s trade agreements permit participants to grant notice of their intentions not to continue their participation within the agreement. The date of termination may not be less than six months after the notice was issued.

I suppose all USA international trade agreements include the concept of most favored nation which does not require that the participating nation not discriminate among other foreign participating nations. The concept does not prohibit participating nation’s from favoring their nation’s enterprises or their nation’s products.
The proposed Import Certificate policy fully adheres to the concept of most favored nation.

I’m not a proponent of ill-advised and unnecessary confrontation but I do not advocate the we fail to act in our nation’s best net best interests in order to placate others. I’m of the opinion that such advocacy is foolish and unpatriotic.

USA’s adopting the proposed Import Certificate would be of significant net benefit to our social and economic wellbeing.

Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
Many opponents of USA adopting the unilateral Import Certificate policy for our global trade of goods declare many canards.

They presume that foreign nation’s dissatisfaction with USA’s adopting the Import certificate proposal would lead to war. Prediction of armed conflict due to such USA action is preposterous.
Their predictions of “trade wars” are also foolish. Nations and global enterprises within the courses of their normal activities or by deliberate mischievous acts now do much to effectively undermine USA’s global trade. These detrimental acts are enacted by departments within USA’s own federal government or by USA enterprises.

Unlike “pure” free trade, within an Import Certificate policy opportunities for most of the methods by which USA’s global trade is now undermined would no longer be possible.

Although quantities for many kinds of imports products sold to USA purchasers may be reduced due to their higher prices, USA’s domestic market will remain profitably attractive to many foreign product and the USA policy is an indirect subsidy of USA export prices to foreign purchasers.

Regardless of how foreign nations and enterprises react to this policy, USA’s GDP and our numbers of jobs will net benefit from this policy.

Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
 
, USA’s GDP and our numbers .

how is there a net benefit from trade wars and perhaps real wars?? Remember the Smoot Hawley Great Depression and WW2??? Some people never learn. Republicans had made great progress civilizing China. We don't to blow it and face them as a military enemy. 1+1=2
 
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
There is only one possible solution to trade deficits, and that is high tariffs.

Is that what you propose then ??
 
, USA’s GDP and our numbers .

how is there a net benefit from trade wars and perhaps real wars?? Remember the Smoot Hawley Great Depression and WW2??? Some people never learn. Republicans had made great progress civilizing China. We don't to blow it and face them as a military enemy. 1+1=2
The benefit of real war is stimulation of the economy with military spending, the same way that Reagan solved the stag-flation of Carter in 1980.

The world has Adolf Hitler to thank for stimulating all the nations of the world out of The Great Depression of the 1930's. His solution of remobilization and war forced the other nations' government to undergo massive stimulus spending on military materiel (note the correct spelling of this word) to fight him in a world war across Europe and Asia.
 
[QUOTE="yiostheoy, post: 15149875, member: 57989
There is only one possible solution to trade deficits, and that is high tariffs.

Is that what you propose then ??[/QUOTE]

Yiosthoy, No, although both a tariff and an Import Certificate policy can (and I believe should) be drafted to pass the system’s entire net direct costs onto USA’s purchasers of imported goods.
Within a tariff policy, assurances of USA’s annual trade deficits of goods being sufficiently reduced cannot be assured unless the additional costs to USA purchasers of goods are extremely drastic.

The global markets’ price rate for the transferable Import Certificates are not ever likely to fall below the federal fee rates that exporters of USA agree to pay in order to acquire Import Certificates of face values equal to their goods assessed values.

But those certificates global markets’ rate is substantially determined by the markets. Regardless of how low that price should fall, (i.e. regardless of the additional cost passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods), USA’s annual trade deficits of goods will be entirely or almost entirely eliminated.

Unlike tariffs, Import Certificate’s substantially global markets’ determined price rate (that determines USA purchasers’ increased prices for imports) are not increased beyond what is necessary to entirely eliminate USA’s chronic annual traded deficits of goods.

Due to the Import Certificate global markets’ behaviors, the system’s an indirect subsidy of USA’s exported goods prices to foreign purchasers and that indirect subsidy is of no cost to anyone.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
The benefit of real war is stimulation of the economy with military spending, the same way that Reagan solved the stag-flation of Carter in 1980.

The world has Adolf Hitler to thank for stimulating all the nations of the world out of The Great Depression of the 1930's. His solution of remobilization and war forced the other nations' government to undergo massive stimulus spending on military materiel (note the correct spelling of this word) to fight him in a world war across Europe and Asia.

Yiosthoy, how is this germane to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods?
Respectfully, Supposn
 
The world has Adolf Hitler to thank for stimulating all the nations of the world out of The Great Depression of the 1930's.

so that solves the economic problem!! All we have to do is make weapons and throw them into the sea to stimulate economies!! Too bad you cant be president!!!...of the world!! The world's economy would constantly grow!!

PS: Obviously only an 100% illiterate liberal would believe that!!
 
The benefit of real war is stimulation of the economy with military spending, the same way that Reagan solved the stag-flation of Carter in 1980.

The world has Adolf Hitler to thank for stimulating all the nations of the world out of The Great Depression of the 1930's. His solution of remobilization and war forced the other nations' government to undergo massive stimulus spending on military materiel (note the correct spelling of this word) to fight him in a world war across Europe and Asia.

Yiosthoy, how is this germane to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods?
Respectfully, Supposn

deficits don't matter what does matter is making weapons and throwing them into the sea. That way economies grow and there is nothing to complain about. Do you understand?
 
The benefit of real war is stimulation of the economy with military spending, the same way that Reagan solved the stag-flation of Carter in 1980.

The world has Adolf Hitler to thank for stimulating all the nations of the world out of The Great Depression of the 1930's. His solution of remobilization and war forced the other nations' government to undergo massive stimulus spending on military materiel (note the correct spelling of this word) to fight him in a world war across Europe and Asia.

Yiosthoy, how is this germane to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods?
Respectfully, Supposn

Edward Baiamonte responded by posting "deficits don't matter what does matter is making weapons and throwing them into the sea. That way economies grow and there is nothing to complain about. Do you understand".
In this particular case I more appreciate Edward Baiamonte's response to Yiostheoy rather than my own.

But then Ed added this PS: "Obviously only an 100% illiterate liberal would believe that!".
Those unable to express logical opposition to the positions of others are unable to conceal their handicap when their responses are illogical; particularly when there illogical response is of no effect.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
deficits don't matter what does matter is making weapons and throwing them into the sea. That way economies grow and there is nothing to complain about. Do you understand?

EdwardBaiamonte, trade deficits do matter but they are not the entire determinators of their nations' GDPs or entire social and economic wellbeing.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top