Supposn

Gold Member
Jul 26, 2009
2,633
316
130
Contentions of credible economists.
(1) Trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced. Due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits our domestic production has been less than otherwise; (otherwise being if a greater proportion of USA's spendings had been for purchases of domestic rather than foreign products).
(2) Gross domestic product, (GDP) is effectively the nation's entire domestic production of goods and services. During USA's greater GDP years, our domestic marketplaces' aggregate sales are greater, and within lesser GDP years, those sales are lesser. USA's GDP, domestic production, total payroll amounts and numbers of jobs, domestic markets' sales statistics move in the same directions.
(3) USA's chronic annual trade deficits are the extents of foreign products crowding USA products out of marketplaces.

Rarely, if ever do credible economists refute any of these three contentions and this holds true even among credible economists that are ardent proponents of pure free trade. The majority of credible economists contend due to our annual trade deficit's small proportional relationship to USA's GDP, trade deficits' detrimental effects are of lesser concern.

Other credible economists contend that individual nation's net international trade balances effects upon their domestic production exceed their calculated effects upon their nation's GDP. Thus, a trade balance's benefits to trade surplus nations, and detriments to trade deficit nations' GDPs are understated.
They conclude detrimental effects of USA's chronic great annual trade deficits upon our domestic production and numbers of jobs to be of economic significance.

I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described with Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
1 and 2 are simple restatements of definitions. 3 is simply simplistic and often times wrong. International specialization, for instance does not crowd the US companies out of the market. US companies prefer it because the economy of scale saves them money.
 
Contentions of credible economists.
(1) Trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced. Due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits our domestic production has been less than otherwise; (otherwise being if a greater proportion of USA's spendings had been for purchases of domestic rather than foreign products).
(2) Gross domestic product, (GDP) is effectively the nation's entire domestic production of goods and services. During USA's greater GDP years, our domestic marketplaces' aggregate sales are greater, and within lesser GDP years, those sales are lesser. USA's GDP, domestic production, total payroll amounts and numbers of jobs, domestic markets' sales statistics move in the same directions.
(3) USA's chronic annual trade deficits are the extents of foreign products crowding USA products out of marketplaces. ...
1 and 2 are simple restatements of definitions. 3 is simply simplistic and often times wrong. International specialization, for instance does not crowd the US companies out of the market. US companies prefer it because the economy of scale saves them money.
Dekster, with regard to individual nations' annual trade deficits, when are any of the three statements ever incorrect?

Individual entities participate in global trade because they perceive net benefit to themselves. Their perceptions are usually correct. However, there are some identified and specifically described actions and transactions that individuals may perceive to be in there own best interests but are justifiably regulated or prohibited by government laws and regulations.
The rational for those laws and regulations are recognition of what's net detrimental to our nation's society or economy.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
Contentions of credible economists.
(1) Trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced. Due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits our domestic production has been less than otherwise; (otherwise being if a greater proportion of USA's spendings had been for purchases of domestic rather than foreign products).
(2) Gross domestic product, (GDP) is effectively the nation's entire domestic production of goods and services. During USA's greater GDP years, our domestic marketplaces' aggregate sales are greater, and within lesser GDP years, those sales are lesser. USA's GDP, domestic production, total payroll amounts and numbers of jobs, domestic markets' sales statistics move in the same directions.
(3) USA's chronic annual trade deficits are the extents of foreign products crowding USA products out of marketplaces. ...
1 and 2 are simple restatements of definitions. 3 is simply simplistic and often times wrong. International specialization, for instance does not crowd the US companies out of the market. US companies prefer it because the economy of scale saves them money.
Dekster, with regard to individual nations' annual trade deficits, when are any of the three statements ever incorrect?

Individual entities participate in global trade because they perceive net benefit to themselves. Their perceptions are usually correct. However, there are some identified and specifically described actions and transactions that individuals may perceive to be in there own best interests but are justifiably regulated or prohibited by government laws and regulations.
The rational for those laws and regulations are recognition of what's net detrimental to our nation's society or economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Dekster, with regard to individual nations' annual trade deficits, when are any of the three statements ever incorrect?

When a nation depends on imports of raw materials, especially energy.
 
Contentions of credible economists.
(1) Trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced. Due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits our domestic production has been less than otherwise; (otherwise being if a greater proportion of USA's spendings had been for purchases of domestic rather than foreign products).
(2) Gross domestic product, (GDP) is effectively the nation's entire domestic production of goods and services. During USA's greater GDP years, our domestic marketplaces' aggregate sales are greater, and within lesser GDP years, those sales are lesser. USA's GDP, domestic production, total payroll amounts and numbers of jobs, domestic markets' sales statistics move in the same directions.
(3) USA's chronic annual trade deficits are the extents of foreign products crowding USA products out of marketplaces.

Rarely, if ever do credible economists refute any of these three contentions and this holds true even among credible economists that are ardent proponents of pure free trade. The majority of credible economists contend due to our annual trade deficit's small proportional relationship to USA's GDP, trade deficits' detrimental effects are of lesser concern.

Other credible economists contend that individual nation's net international trade balances effects upon their domestic production exceed their calculated effects upon their nation's GDP. Thus, a trade balance's benefits to trade surplus nations, and detriments to trade deficit nations' GDPs are understated.
They conclude detrimental effects of USA's chronic great annual trade deficits upon our domestic production and numbers of jobs to be of economic significance.

I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described with Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.
Respectfully, Supposn

Garbage. We tried reducing imported goods with the 1930s Smoot-Hawley tariffs. The result was a great depression.

We don't need to reduce imports. US manufacturing is at record levels.

If reducing imports is such a boon for our economy, please explain how imposing a reduction on imports into Russia has not resulted in a Russian economic boom?

If reducing imports, is the key to our success, please explain why people are complaining about our imposed reducing of imports into Venezuela, is being blamed for their economy crashing?

You people are the most illogical inconsistent debaters on this matter.

We stop exports to Russia, and it harms them.
We stop exports to Iran, and it harms them.
We stop exports to Venezuela, and it harms them.

Then you turn right around and say you want to stop imports into the US, and claim it will be beneficial.

How stupid is this?
 
Dekster, with regard to individual nations' annual trade deficits, when are any of the three statements ever incorrect?

When a nation depends on imports of raw materials, especially energy.
ToddsterPatriot, yes, if that's the cause of the nation's annual trade deficit. But that's not the the cause of USA's great chronic annual trade deficits.

That's also among the reasons Wikipedia's described “Import Certificates” policy is superior to all other trade policies for our nation. That policy is not applicable to scarce or precious materials integral to globally traded goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Garbage. We tried reducing imported goods with the 1930s Smoot-Hawley tariffs. The result was a great depression.

We don't need to reduce imports. US manufacturing is at record levels.

If reducing imports is such a boon for our economy, please explain how imposing a reduction on imports into Russia has not resulted in a Russian economic boom?

If reducing imports, is the key to our success, please explain why people are complaining about our imposed reducing of imports into Venezuela, is being blamed for their economy crashing?

You people are the most illogical inconsistent debaters on this matter.

We stop exports to Russia, and it harms them.
We stop exports to Iran, and it harms them.
We stop exports to Venezuela, and it harms them.

Then you turn right around and say you want to stop imports into the US, and claim it will be beneficial.

How stupid is this?
AndyLusion, I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.
It cannot prevent the importation of any legal product if there's an effective demand for it within the nation.

The policy is not opposed to international trade or to imports. It would significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate our nation's chronic great annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Smoot-Hawley tariffs were enacted after the depression had begun. It was not the cause of the depression.

I'm a proponent of Import Certificates rather than tariffs. Import Certificate policy is substantially market driven and when prices of imports sold to the nation's consumers are higher, they serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of the nation's exported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Dekster, with regard to individual nations' annual trade deficits, when are any of the three statements ever incorrect?

When a nation depends on imports of raw materials, especially energy.
ToddsterPatriot, yes, if that's the cause of the nation's annual trade deficit. But that's not the the cause of USA's great chronic annual trade deficits.

That's also among the reasons Wikipedia's described “Import Certificates” policy is superior to all other trade policies for our nation. That policy is not applicable to scarce or precious materials integral to globally traded goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

yes, if that's the cause of the nation's annual trade deficit. But that's not the the cause of USA's great chronic annual trade deficits.

Well, you said a deficit always, not sometimes, not most times but always reduces GDP.
And now you admit your claim was wrong.

That's also among the reasons Wikipedia's described “Import Certificates” policy is superior to all other trade policies for our nation.

It's a stupid idea. It won't work. It will harm GDP. It will harm trade.
 
Contentions of credible economists.
(1) Trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced. Due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits our domestic production has been less than otherwise; (otherwise being if a greater proportion of USA's spendings had been for purchases of domestic rather than foreign products).
(2) Gross domestic product, (GDP) is effectively the nation's entire domestic production of goods and services. During USA's greater GDP years, our domestic marketplaces' aggregate sales are greater, and within lesser GDP years, those sales are lesser. USA's GDP, domestic production, total payroll amounts and numbers of jobs, domestic markets' sales statistics move in the same directions.
(3) USA's chronic annual trade deficits are the extents of foreign products crowding USA products out of marketplaces. ...
1 and 2 are simple restatements of definitions. 3 is simply simplistic and often times wrong. International specialization, for instance does not crowd the US companies out of the market. US companies prefer it because the economy of scale saves them money.
Dekster, with regard to individual nations' annual trade deficits, when are any of the three statements ever incorrect?

Individual entities participate in global trade because they perceive net benefit to themselves. Their perceptions are usually correct. However, there are some identified and specifically described actions and transactions that individuals may perceive to be in there own best interests but are justifiably regulated or prohibited by government laws and regulations.
The rational for those laws and regulations are recognition of what's net detrimental to our nation's society or economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Capital inflow and trade deficits are inextricable since the US went off the gold standard. Economists, at least ones worth the title, do not look at a single data point or trendline when assessing something as complicated as the US economy. With manufacturing declining in the US as a percentage of GDP, then services naturally are more relevant economically. We are at full employment. We don't have any more slack to even provide labor for moving manufacturing back here.
 
Garbage. We tried reducing imported goods with the 1930s Smoot-Hawley tariffs. The result was a great depression.

We don't need to reduce imports. US manufacturing is at record levels.

If reducing imports is such a boon for our economy, please explain how imposing a reduction on imports into Russia has not resulted in a Russian economic boom?

If reducing imports, is the key to our success, please explain why people are complaining about our imposed reducing of imports into Venezuela, is being blamed for their economy crashing?

You people are the most illogical inconsistent debaters on this matter.

We stop exports to Russia, and it harms them.
We stop exports to Iran, and it harms them.
We stop exports to Venezuela, and it harms them.

Then you turn right around and say you want to stop imports into the US, and claim it will be beneficial.

How stupid is this?
AndyLusion, I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.
It cannot prevent the importation of any legal product if there's an effective demand for it within the nation.

The policy is not opposed to international trade or to imports. It would significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate our nation's chronic great annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Smoot-Hawley tariffs were enacted after the depression had begun. It was not the cause of the depression.

I'm a proponent of Import Certificates rather than tariffs. Import Certificate policy is substantially market driven and when prices of imports sold to the nation's consumers are higher, they serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of the nation's exported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

This whole notion that having a trade balance is inherently bad for a country’s economy is silly. The reason we import many of the products is because they can be produced more efficiently (cheaper) somewhere else. What is the result to the consumer if we begin to produce all of our electronics here in the US? Higher prices. How are higher prices good for the consumer.

Milton Friedman is very enlightening on the subject-

 
Oh, good thread. Economic theory and monetary policy is probably my favorote topic. Mises for the win, I say.

Keynes has us 22 trillion in debt and 4 cents on a dollar of purchasing power. Well, trustees in Keynes anyway.
 
... Well, you said a deficit always, not sometimes, not most times but always reduces GDP.
And now you admit your claim was wrong. ... It's, [i.e Import Cerificate policy's] a stupid idea. It won't work. It will harm GDP. It will harm trade.
ToddsterPatriot, I agreed you were correct. Although trade deficits are detrimental to their nation's GDP, they may be economically dependent upon some particular imported products and have no favorable alternative choice but to experience trade deficits. But USA's great chronic annual trade deficits are not primarily due to such an economic dependency.

[Wikipedia's described Import Certificate nation's regulations regarding assessing values of international traded goods, excludes (what's their evaluations) of scarce or precious minerals integral to those goods. The trade policy has no effect upon importing or exporting such materials. That why I've stated the policy may possibly only significantly reduce, rather than entirely eliminate USA's annual trade deficits.] If the dependency upon specific imported goods is so great as to preclude any significant reduction of the nation's annual trade deficits, there'd be no justification for to adopting the Import Certificate policy.

Import Certificate policy was specifically not recommended for a nation that would otherwise not experience substantial annual trade deficits of goods. Its adoption by the USA would be of significant economic benefit to our nation.

The Wikipedia article specifically explains how Import Certificate policy would benefit USA's GDP. You have have thus far not succeeded to refute it.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Capital inflow and trade deficits are inextricable since the US went off the gold standard. Economists, at least ones worth the title, do not look at a single data point or trendline when assessing something as complicated as the US economy. With manufacturing declining in the US as a percentage of GDP, then services naturally are more relevant economically. We are at full employment. We don't have any more slack to even provide labor for moving manufacturing back here.
Dekster, I would suppose that USA's manufacturing would be the greater gaining industry due to this trade policy. But this is a substantially market driven policy. It would be of advantage to any USA producer that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods anywhere in the world.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from Import certificates - Wikipedia :
“... Under this proposal to the extents that USA purchasers willingness to pay additionally for foreign goods indirectly induces increasing USA exports of goods, or USA’s purchasers refraining from paying such additional costs indirectly induces increased USA production to satisfy Our domestic want of goods, will in both instances reduce our trade deficit and bolster our GDP more than otherwise. ...”.
 
Last edited:
... Well, you said a deficit always, not sometimes, not most times but always reduces GDP.
And now you admit your claim was wrong. ... It's, [i.e Import Cerificate policy's] a stupid idea. It won't work. It will harm GDP. It will harm trade.
ToddsterPatriot, I agreed you were correct. Although trade deficits are detrimental to their nation's GDP, they may be economically dependent upon some particular imported products and have no favorable alternative choice but to experience trade deficits. But USA's great chronic annual trade deficits are not primarily due to such an economic dependency.

[Wikipedia's described Import Certificate nation's regulations regarding assessing values of international traded goods, excludes (what's their evaluations) of scarce or precious minerals integral to those goods. The trade policy has no effect upon importing or exporting such materials. That why I've stated the policy may possibly only significantly reduce, rather than entirely eliminate USA's annual trade deficits.] If the dependency upon specific imported goods is so great as to preclude any significant reduction of the nation's annual trade deficits, there'd be no justification for to adopting the Import Certificate policy.

Import Certificate policy was specifically not recommended for a nation that would otherwise not experience substantial annual trade deficits of goods. Its adoption by the USA would be of significant economic benefit to our nation.

The Wikipedia article specifically explains how Import Certificate policy would benefit USA's GDP. You have have thus far not succeeded to refute it.

Respectfully, Supposn

The Wikipedia article specifically explains how Import Certificate policy would benefit USA's GDP. You have have thus far not succeeded to refute it.

The policy would make goods we consume more expensive. I'm in favor of policies that would make the goods we consume less expensive. I prefer a higher standard of living to a lower one.
 
... Excerpted from Import certificates - Wikipedia :
“... Under this proposal to the extents that USA purchasers willingness to pay additionally for foreign goods indirectly induces increasing USA exports of goods, or USA’s purchasers refraining from paying such additional costs indirectly induces increased USA production to satisfy Our domestic want of goods, will in both instances reduce our trade deficit and bolster our GDP more than otherwise. ...”.
... The policy would make goods we consume more expensive. I'm in favor of policies that would make the goods we consume less expensive. I prefer a higher standard of living to a lower one.
Toddsterpatriot, the policy would reduce our trade deficit and bolster our GDP in a manner that would increase our numbers of jobs and the purchasing power of our median wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
... Excerpted from Import certificates - Wikipedia :
“... Under this proposal to the extents that USA purchasers willingness to pay additionally for foreign goods indirectly induces increasing USA exports of goods, or USA’s purchasers refraining from paying such additional costs indirectly induces increased USA production to satisfy Our domestic want of goods, will in both instances reduce our trade deficit and bolster our GDP more than otherwise. ...”.
... The policy would make goods we consume more expensive. I'm in favor of policies that would make the goods we consume less expensive. I prefer a higher standard of living to a lower one.
Toddsterpatriot, the policy would reduce our trade deficit and bolster our GDP in a manner that would increase our numbers of jobs and the purchasing power of our median wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

It would reduce the trade deficit, raise prices and reduce our standard of living.
 

Forum List

Back
Top