A Republican trade deficit solution?

[Supposn]

... If you doubt it read Steve Moore's op-ed in the WSJ of yesterday!!

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m not a subscriber, I’m not now in a library, and I couldn’t google it. If you believe it’s of value and pertinent to this thread, why don’t you post what you post it?

It may be a while until I remember and have an opportunity to read his entire editorial published yesterday.

Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... If you doubt it read Steve Moore's op-ed in the WSJ of yesterday!!

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m not a subscriber, I’m not now in a library, and I couldn’t google it. If you believe it’s of value and pertinent to this thread, why don’t you post what you post it?

It may be a while until I remember and have an opportunity to read his entire editorial published yesterday.

Supposn

I told you the basic thrust of the Trump tax policy is to reduce the corporate tax from 40% to 15% or 0% to give us a comparative advantage that we don't enjoy now. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... If you doubt it read Steve Moore's op-ed in the WSJ of yesterday!!

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m not a subscriber, I’m not now in a library, and I couldn’t google it. If you believe it’s of value and pertinent to this thread, why don’t you post what you post it?

It may be a while until I remember and have an opportunity to read his entire editorial published yesterday.

Supposn

First, he believes that cutting the corporate tax rate is of utmost importance. He wants to cut the current rate from 38.9% (the third highest in the world, behind the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico) to 15%. This would inspire companies to stay in America and companies to move back home after relocating overseas. The Tax Foundation says this could increase long-run U.S. GDP by as much as 4.1%.

 

[Supposn]

you’ve described me as being a communist.

yes you are correct but why point it out again when it is written as plain as day??

EdwardBaiamonte, I should charitably not mention your exposuring your ignorance and/or illogic. I confess to ungentlemanly deriving satisfaction by pointing out your linking the words “liberal”, “communist” to the word “Nazi”.
Both the adjectives “liberal” and “communist” are contradictory to the word “Nazi”. This is true regardless of “Nazi” being used as an adjective or a noun. You obviously know little about the Nazi Party. You’re posts often expose your ignorance, and/or illogic, and/or your lack of regard for your choices of words.

You've learned 116 times now that our liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin and gave Stalin the bomb but they did neither for Mao. Hitler was a national Socialist and Bernie is a socialist. All want ever bigger government with no end in sight does that tie it all together for you neatly enough

Edward Baiamonte, in retrospect I'm supposing my accusations, (e.g. your posts often expose your ignorance, illogic, paranoiac delusions, and lack of regard for the words you choose), are much too harsh.

Your analysis’s, (i.e. within this board your economic analysis’s) are too often shallow and naive. Your consideration of a concept (which you refer to with a single labeling word) is done by “quick draw and shooting from the hip”; considering only one of the concept’s dimensions or facets at a more elementary level and little or no consideration for nuances of the concept and/or its interrelationships with other concepts and market participants that determine their consequential results.

Too often you introduce elements or concepts that are not germane to what’s being discussed but reveal paranoia; (refer to the accompanied quote within this post). You often perceive a concept or proposals are absolutely contrary to your positions on the political spectrum when often that’s not the case. You consider the unfamiliar is to be opposed as alien and at least undesirable if not purely evil.

I do wish you well, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your analysis’s, (i.e. within this board your economic analysis’s) are too often shallow and naive.

so you think Milton Friedman was shallow??? Example????

 

[Supposn]

Your analysis’s, (i.e. within this board your economic analysis’s) are too often shallow and naive.

so you think Milton Friedman was shallow??? Example????

Edward Baiamonte, you’re no Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman was a distinguished economist who logically argued his positions. He (as we expect from all competent and knowledgeable participant of discussions), logically argued his positions.

Unlike you, it was not his practice to write or chant a litany of mantras of adjectives and concept labeling words.

Regardless if others agreed or disagreed with logical stated positions and supporting arguments, people of knowledge and competence recognize their merits and similarly respond to them.

My response of 12;27 PM, April 20, 2017 explains this in more detail.

I wish you well, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your analysis’s, (i.e. within this board your economic analysis’s) are too often shallow and naive.

so you think Milton Friedman was shallow??? Example????

Edward Baiamonte, you’re no Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman was a distinguished economist who logically argued his positions. He (as we expect from all competent and knowledgeable participant of discussions), logically argued his positions.

Unlike you, it was not his practice to write or chant a litany of mantras of adjectives and concept labeling words.

Regardless if others agreed or disagreed with logical stated positions and supporting arguments, people of knowledge and competence recognize their merits and similarly respond to them.

My response of 12;27 PM, April 20, 2017 explains this in more detail.

I wish you well, Supposn

Why not cut the BS if you disagree with Friedmans position on free trade say why and give us all a good laugh

 

[Supposn]

Your analysis’s, (i.e. within this board your economic analysis’s) are too often shallow and naive.

so you think Milton Friedman was shallow??? Example????

Edward Baiamonte, you’re no Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman was a distinguished economist who logically argued his positions. He (as we expect from all competent and knowledgeable participant of discussions), logically argued his positions.

Unlike you, it was not his practice to write or chant a litany of mantras of adjectives and concept labeling words.

Regardless if others agreed or disagreed with logical stated positions and supporting arguments, people of knowledge and competence recognize their merits and similarly respond to them.

My response of 12;27 PM, April 20, 2017 explains this in more detail.

I wish you well, Supposn

Why not cut the BS if you disagree with Friedmans position on free trade say why and give us all a good laugh

Refer to the initial post of the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ .

Edward Baiamonte, I’m not opposed to USA participating within global trade; but I am opposed to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods. USA’s annual trade deficits are always net drag upon our GDP and unless we have reasonably full employment, they’re also a net drag upon our numbers of jobs.

It’s contended if USA adopted the policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article:
We’d increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
We’d enjoy cheaper, but not the absolute cheapest possible foreign goods.
The policies net costs are eventually and ENTIRELY passed on to USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Beyond federal direct costs for assessing the approximate USA markets’ values of shipments passing through our borders and administrative costs, all other of the policy’s net costs are market determined.

Due to the behavior of markets, if USA consumers are willing to purchase more foreign goods, the prices of imports within USA markets will increase unless there’s a corresponding demand for USA exports.
Some increase of demand for USA exported goods is feasible because import price increases within USA’s market places effectively serve as indirect price subsidies for USA’s exported goods; those price subsidies are of no additional cost to anyone else.

There's more to this policy but this post has gone further than your ability to understand. Marketing concepts requires considering interrelationships between multi participants.

I wish you well, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your analysis’s, (i.e. within this board your economic analysis’s) are too often shallow and naive.

so you think Milton Friedman was shallow??? Example????

Edward Baiamonte, you’re no Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman was a distinguished economist who logically argued his positions. He (as we expect from all competent and knowledgeable participant of discussions), logically argued his positions.

Unlike you, it was not his practice to write or chant a litany of mantras of adjectives and concept labeling words.

Regardless if others agreed or disagreed with logical stated positions and supporting arguments, people of knowledge and competence recognize their merits and similarly respond to them.

My response of 12;27 PM, April 20, 2017 explains this in more detail.

I wish you well, Supposn

Why not cut the BS if you disagree with Friedmans position on free trade say why and give us all a good laugh

Refer to the initial post of the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ .

Edward Baiamonte, I’m not opposed to USA participating within global trade; but I am opposed to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods. USA’s annual trade deficits are always net drag upon our GDP and unless we have reasonably full employment, they’re also a net drag upon our numbers of jobs.

It’s contended if USA adopted the policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article:
We’d increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
We’d enjoy cheaper, but not the absolute cheapest possible foreign goods.
The policies net costs are eventually and ENTIRELY passed on to USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Beyond federal direct costs for assessing the approximate USA markets’ values of shipments passing through our borders and administrative costs, all other of the policy’s net costs are market determined.

Due to the behavior of markets, if USA consumers are willing to purchase more foreign goods, the prices of imports within USA markets will increase unless there’s a corresponding demand for USA exports.
Some increase of demand for USA exported goods is feasible because import price increases within USA’s market places effectively serve as indirect price subsidies for USA’s exported goods; those price subsidies are of no additional cost to anyone else.

There's more to this policy but this post has gone further than your ability to understand. Marketing concepts requires considering interrelationships between multi participants.

I wish you well, Supposn

Why not cut the BS??? If you disagree with Friedman's position on free trade in favor of protecting and crippling our industries say why and give us all a good laugh.

 

[danielpalos]

... If you doubt it read Steve Moore's op-ed in the WSJ of yesterday!!

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m not a subscriber, I’m not now in a library, and I couldn’t google it. If you believe it’s of value and pertinent to this thread, why don’t you post what you post it?

It may be a while until I remember and have an opportunity to read his entire editorial published yesterday.

Supposn

I told you the basic thrust of the Trump tax policy is to reduce the corporate tax from 40% to 15% or 0% to give us a comparative advantage that we don't enjoy now. Do you understand?

End the Work Tax; only artificial Persons should have to work and pay tax.

 

[Supposn]

Why not cut the BS if you disagree with Friedmans position on free trade say why and give us all a good laugh

Refer to the initial post of the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ .

Edward Baiamonte, I’m not opposed to USA participating within global trade; but I am opposed to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods. USA’s annual trade deficits are always net drag upon our GDP and unless we have reasonably full employment, they’re also a net drag upon our numbers of jobs.

It’s contended if USA adopted the policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article:
We’d increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
We’d enjoy cheaper, but not the absolute cheapest possible foreign goods.
The policies net costs are eventually and ENTIRELY passed on to USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Beyond federal direct costs for assessing the approximate USA markets’ values of shipments passing through our borders and administrative costs, all other of the policy’s net costs are market determined.

Due to the behavior of markets, if USA consumers are willing to purchase more foreign goods, the prices of imports within USA markets will increase unless there’s a corresponding demand for USA exports.
Some increase of demand for USA exported goods is feasible because import price increases within USA’s market places effectively serve as indirect price subsidies for USA’s exported goods; those price subsidies are of no additional cost to anyone else.

There's more to this policy but this post has gone further than your ability to understand. Marketing concepts requires considering interrelationships between multi participants.

I wish you well, Supposn

Why not cut the BS??? If you disagree with Friedman's position on free trade in favor of protecting and crippling our industries say why and give us all a good laugh.

you posted this same question yesterday morning and I responded to it. My response began by stating “refer to the initial post of the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ ”.

That link substantial explanation of my opinions regarding “pure free trade”. Apparently, you ask questions but disregard the answers, or you cannot read, or you’re unable to comprehend what you read.

You’re ignorant, illogical, paranoiac delusional, and lack of regard for the words you choose, don’t understand what you read, (if you do read) and you’re generally uncivil.

I wish you the best but I’m not optimistic that you could ever be well.

Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

"Renegotiated Trade", not Free Trade!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why not cut the BS if you disagree with Friedmans position on free trade say why and give us all a good laugh

Refer to the initial post of the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ .

Edward Baiamonte, I’m not opposed to USA participating within global trade; but I am opposed to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods. USA’s annual trade deficits are always net drag upon our GDP and unless we have reasonably full employment, they’re also a net drag upon our numbers of jobs.

It’s contended if USA adopted the policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article:
We’d increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
We’d enjoy cheaper, but not the absolute cheapest possible foreign goods.
The policies net costs are eventually and ENTIRELY passed on to USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Beyond federal direct costs for assessing the approximate USA markets’ values of shipments passing through our borders and administrative costs, all other of the policy’s net costs are market determined.

Due to the behavior of markets, if USA consumers are willing to purchase more foreign goods, the prices of imports within USA markets will increase unless there’s a corresponding demand for USA exports.
Some increase of demand for USA exported goods is feasible because import price increases within USA’s market places effectively serve as indirect price subsidies for USA’s exported goods; those price subsidies are of no additional cost to anyone else.

There's more to this policy but this post has gone further than your ability to understand. Marketing concepts requires considering interrelationships between multi participants.

I wish you well, Supposn

Why not cut the BS??? If you disagree with Friedman's position on free trade in favor of protecting and crippling our industries say why and give us all a good laugh.

you posted this same question yesterday morning and I responded to it. My response began by stating “refer to the initial post of the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ ”.

That link substantial explanation of my opinions regarding “pure free trade”. Apparently, you ask questions but disregard the answers, or you cannot read, or you’re unable to comprehend what you read.

You’re ignorant, illogical, paranoiac delusional, and lack of regard for the words you choose, don’t understand what you read, (if you do read) and you’re generally uncivil.

I wish you the best but I’m not optimistic that you could ever be well.

Supposn

Why not cut the BS??? If you disagree with Friedman's position on free trade in favor of protecting and crippling our industries say why and give us all a good laugh. Your answer would start with: Milton Friedman was wrong about free trade when he said……

 

[Supposn]

Why not cut the BS??? If you disagree with Friedman's position on free trade in favor of protecting and crippling our industries say why and give us all a good laugh. Your answer would start with: Milton Friedman was wrong about free trade when he said……

EdwardBaiamonte, I'm not corresponding with Milton Freidman.
He is dead? But your posts seem to be the product of a less than active brain). I don't suppose you to be an artificial Intelligent device because such devices are very intelligently programmed.

You’re still chanting labels and not discussing specific points of specific concepts.
Within the accompanying quote of your post, your subject is effectively a single label, Milton Friedman’s opinions regarding free trade. Good; we can keep it simpler this way.

You started to open a discussion by posting “Milton Friedman was wrong about free trade when he said…”. That’s not a bad alternative if your unable to express any thoughts of your own. Alternatively, you could post the same sentence but replace the word “wrong” with the word “correct”.

What specific point within Friedman’s writing or speeches are you refering to? I assume it would be something that you agree with, but possibly we all agree on that same point.

I’m not optimistic in your case. I expect that you’ll revert to posting label words and adjectives, or point to one or more of speeches or writings and fail to choose a specific (rather than a general) point that you wish to discuss.

I appreciate that you’re attempting to think. I hope you succeed to do so.

I wish you well, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

"Renegotiated Trade", not Free Trade!

... I’m opposed to any other than a unilateral trade policy. Each sovereign nation should govern their own international trade policy.
I’m not opposed to international agreements for purposes other than economics.
I believe in the concept of “most favored nation that I believe is explicit or implied within every USA international agreement referring to regulating of goods at national borders.

The concept of “most favored nation” does not prohibit a nation from favoring their own entities but simply prohibits the agreeing nations from granting any other foreign nation more favorable treatment than is not granted to all other nation’s participating in the mutual international agreement. That I agree with.

If USA continues to internationally negotiate our border regulations, our trade policies will continue to be less beneficial to ourselves. I’m opposed to trading away the best interests of USA wage earners for the benefit of nations unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.
I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation. ...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why not cut the BS??? If you disagree with Friedman's position on free trade in favor of protecting and crippling our industries say why and give us all a good laugh. Your answer would start with: Milton Friedman was wrong about free trade when he said……

EdwardBaiamonte, I'm not corresponding with Milton Freidman.
He is dead? But your posts seem to be the product of a less than active brain). I don't suppose you to be an artificial Intelligent device because such devices are very intelligently programmed.

You’re still chanting labels and not discussing specific points of specific concepts.
Within the accompanying quote of your post, your subject is effectively a single label, Milton Friedman’s opinions regarding free trade. Good; we can keep it simpler this way.

You started to open a discussion by posting “Milton Friedman was wrong about free trade when he said…”. That’s not a bad alternative if your unable to express any thoughts of your own. Alternatively, you could post the same sentence but replace the word “wrong” with the word “correct”.

What specific point within Friedman’s writing or speeches are you refering to? I assume it would be something that you agree with, but possibly we all agree on that same point.

I’m not optimistic in your case. I expect that you’ll revert to posting label words and adjectives, or point to one or more of speeches or writings and fail to choose a specific (rather than a general) point that you wish to discuss.

I appreciate that you’re attempting to think. I hope you succeed to do so.

I wish you well, Supposn

Friedman believed in free trade between individuals, cities, states, and countries to avoid trade wars, higher prices, lower standards of living, crippled/protected industries, and perhaps even war. Do you have the ability to understand?

 

[Supposn]

Friedman believed in free trade between individuals, cities, states, and countries to avoid trade wars, higher prices, lower standards of living, crippled/protected industries, and perhaps even war. Do you have the ability to understand?

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m not opposed to our nation participating in global trade, but I am certainly opposed to our attempting to practice “pure” free trade. We’ve been consistently experiencing annual trade deficits. Annual trade deficits always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

This link offered link that you apparently will continue to spurn, describes some how and why annual trade deficits are net detrimental to their nations. Refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ .
There I’ve written of how and why annual trade deficits always drag upon their nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs.

Now the ball’s in your court; you try to refute that with my posts with logical REASONING. You can write your own reasons or quote anyone Milton Friedman or anyone else. I know Freidman has argued that trade deficits are not net economically detrimental to their nations. Find and post his logically reasoned explanations. Then we have a basis for discussion. I will not respond to an entire article or speech; just one topic at a time.

I don’t intend to make your arguments for you; I won’t do your homework or play Devil’s advocate; I respect logic and I understand that displeases you.

Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Friedman believed in free trade between individuals, cities, states, and countries to avoid trade wars, higher prices, lower standards of living, crippled/protected industries, and perhaps even war. Do you have the ability to understand?

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m not opposed to our nation participating in global trade, but I am certainly opposed to our attempting to practice “pure” free trade. We’ve been consistently experiencing annual trade deficits. Annual trade deficits always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

This link offered link that you apparently will continue to spurn, describes some how and why annual trade deficits are net detrimental to their nations. Refer to
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/ .
There I’ve written of how and why annual trade deficits always drag upon their nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs.

Now the ball’s in your court; you try to refute that with my posts with logical REASONING. You can write your own reasons or quote anyone Milton Friedman or anyone else. I know Freidman has argued that trade deficits are not net economically detrimental to their nations. Find and post his logically reasoned explanations. Then we have a basis for discussion. I will not respond to an entire article or speech; just one topic at a time.

I don’t intend to make your arguments for you; I won’t do your homework or play Devil’s advocate; I respect logic and I understand that displeases you.

Supposn

Friedman said that free trade makes trade deficits impossible. Do you understand?

 

[danielpalos]

"Renegotiated Trade", not Free Trade!

... I’m opposed to any other than a unilateral trade policy. Each sovereign nation should govern their own international trade policy.
I’m not opposed to international agreements for purposes other than economics.
I believe in the concept of “most favored nation that I believe is explicit or implied within every USA international agreement referring to regulating of goods at national borders.

The concept of “most favored nation” does not prohibit a nation from favoring their own entities but simply prohibits the agreeing nations from granting any other foreign nation more favorable treatment than is not granted to all other nation’s participating in the mutual international agreement. That I agree with.

If USA continues to internationally negotiate our border regulations, our trade policies will continue to be less beneficial to ourselves. I’m opposed to trading away the best interests of USA wage earners for the benefit of nations unwilling or unable to better compensate their own laborers.
I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation. ...

It has more to do with politics, for me.

Laissez-fair, all the way, right wingers. Don't be socialists.

 

[Supposn]

Friedman said that free trade makes trade deficits impossible. Do you understand?

Edward Baiamonte,Friedman never wrote or said trade deficits are impossible. In excess of a half century the USA has experienced annual trade deficits of goods. Due to your own ignorance and/or illogic, you’ve misinterpreted Friedman’s words or you’re hallucinating.
Supposn