Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.

[Supposn]

What I do not see in your link is any reference to import certificates, and nothing that states all or nearly all credible economists support that idea. ...

Task0778, who posted "all or nearly all credible economists support the idea", (i.e. the idea of import certificates)?
I did post "Even among economist and educators, few people are aware of the comparatively unknown import certificate concept for a nation's international trade policy".
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[task0778]

Task0778, who posted "all or nearly all credible economists support the idea", (i.e. the idea of import certificates)?
I did post "Even among economist and educators, few people are aware of the comparatively unknown import certificate concept for a nation's international trade policy".
Respectfully, Supposn

This is what you said in post #12:

I'm among the proponents for the trade policy described in Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article. Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia
Respectfully, Supposn

I responded to that statement about ICs in post 14. Whereupon in post #15, you say:

I don't know why so many people continue doubting what has been generally accepted by all, or almost entirely all credible economists.

I was referring to the concept of ICs, but you apparently went back to talking about trade imbalances. So, some crossed lines of communication there as I thought we were discussing ICs. However, I still have yet to see anything that states all or nearly all credible economists believe that a negative trade imbalance is always detrimental to a nation's GDP. As stated above in post #10:

In the U.S., some periods of strong economic growth have come at times of a surging trade deficit, as consumers and businesses buy more products and services from abroad, and foreign investors seek to put their money to work in the U.S.

 

[Supposn]

Take a country with zero trade and a $20 trillion GDP.

Now import and consume $1 trillion in goods.

What's the new GDP, if everything else is unchanged?

Whining ToddsterPatriot, they had a $20 trillion GDP, then something changed.

Did they continue producing $20 trillion of goods and services while they later imported $1 trillion of goods? In that case, they later spent $21 trillion and their GDP remained at $20 trillion.

Did they reduce production to be $19 trillion because of importing $1 trillion of goods? In that case, they continued to spend $20 trillion but their GDP became $19 trillion.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did they continue producing $20 trillion of goods and services while they later imported $1 trillion of goods? In that case, they later spent $21 trillion and their GDP remained at $20 trillion.

Remained at $20 trillion? The trade deficit didn't reduce GDP?
It didn't have a "detrimental affect"

Did they reduce production to be $19 trillion

Was "if everything else is unchanged" too complex for your understanding?

 

[Supposn]

... However, I still have yet to see anything that states all or nearly all credible economists believe that a negative trade imbalance is always detrimental to a nation's GDP.

Task0778, refer to:

Britannica Money

gross domestic product (GDP), total market value of the goods and services produced by a country’s economy during a specified period of time. It includes all final goods and services—that is, those that are produced by the economic agents located in that country regardless of their ownership and

www.britannica.com

Take particular notice of the article's using the term "NX" to represent "net exports". When a nation's balance of international trade is negative, that's the net balance of a "trade deficit" nation. I doubt you can find an authoritative and/or credible source that's contrary to this explanation of a nation's balance of international trade's effect upon that nation's GDP. Respectfully, Supposn

Task0778, balance of international trade is a term within the formula for calculating GDP. It's well known and generally accepted throughout the world. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Remained at $20 trillion? The trade deficit didn't reduce GDP?
It didn't have a "detrimental affect"

Did they reduce production to be $19 trillion

Was "if everything else is unchanged" too complex for your understanding?

Whining ToddsterPatriot, you again post disingenuously, (unless you are actually as ignorant as indicated by your posts).

Within the case present, of a nation increasing their import expenditures sufficiently to become a trade deficit nation: If additionally they did not reduce their net aggregate expenditures, they will have effectively reduced their GDP.

If within a similar case, the nation had chosen to rather increase their net aggregate expenditures, they could effectively retain that same GDP. But increasing their net aggregate expenditures would (as we both know), be an additional change.
Annual global trade deficits ALWAYS reduce their nation's annual GDPs (more than otherwise).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whining ToddsterPatriot, you again post disingenuously, (unless you are actually as ignorant as indicated by your posts).

Within the case present, of a nation increasing their import expenditures sufficiently to become a trade deficit nation: If additionally they did not reduce their net aggregate expenditures, they will have effectively reduced their GDP.

If within a similar case, the nation had chosen to rather increase their net aggregate expenditures, they could effectively retain that same GDP. But increasing their net aggregate expenditures would (as we both know), be an additional change.
Annual global trade deficits ALWAYS reduce their nation's annual GDPs (more than otherwise).

Within the case present, of a nation increasing their import expenditures sufficiently to become a trade deficit nation:

In my example, a $1 trillion deficit nation.

If additionally they did not reduce their net aggregate expenditures, they will have effectively reduced their GDP.

Show your math.

Annual global trade deficits ALWAYS reduce their nation's annual GDPs (more than otherwise).

Using my example, prove it.

 

[Supposn]

Economists disagree on the simple question of whether sustained trade deficits are good, bad, or don't matter much for a country and its economy. That's because there are so many variables—so many ways to generate a trade deficit and so many ways it might help or hurt an economy, or reflect good or bad aspects of that economy.
.
.
A trade deficit occurs when the value of a country's imports exceeds the value of its exports—with imports and exports referring both to goods, or physical products, and services. In simple terms, a trade deficit means a country is buying more goods and services than it is selling. An overly simplistic understanding means that this would generally hurt job creation and economic growth in the deficit-running country.
.
.
This view of trade deficits is behind much of the complaints among U.S. politicians about bilateral U.S. trade deficits, especially with China, the country with which the U.S. runs what is by far its largest bilateral trade deficit. That deficit was a prominent campaign theme for Former President Donald Trump in 2016, and a primary reason he launched a trade war against China after taking office. Trump argued that cutting the trade deficit would create jobs in the U.S. and strengthen the economy.
.
.
To many in the world of economics, though, a trade deficit is about an imbalance between a country's savings and investment rates. It means a country is spending more money on imports than it makes on exports, and under the rules of economic accounting it must make up for that shortfall. The U.S., for example, can do so by either borrowing money from foreign lenders or permitting foreign investment in U.S. assets.
.
.
This foreign lending and investment can be seen as a vote of confidence in the U.S. economy and a source of long-term economic growth, if the borrowed money or foreign investment is used wisely, such as investment in productivity growth. This was the case with the U.S. for several decades in the 1800s. The money went into railroads and other public infrastructure, which helped the U.S. develop economically. South Korea saw the same kind of productive investment while running trade deficits in the 1980s and 1990s.
.
AND:
.

A strong trade surplus doesn't necessarily mean strong economic growth. Japan, for example, has run a significant trade surplus for most of the past several decades, yet its economy has been stuck in low gear most of that time. Germany, too, generally runs a strong trade surplus but registers mediocre economic growth.​

.
.
In the U.S., some periods of strong economic growth have come at times of a surging trade deficit, as consumers and businesses buy more products and services from abroad, and foreign investors seek to put their money to work in the U.S.
.
.
Economists also disagree on the broad impact of trade deficits on employment. Some argue that imports necessarily reduce employment at home, while others point to offsetting job growth in other sectors through the same trade ties.
.
.
Often any job loss is limited to specific sectors. Research by the Economic Policy Institute found that the surge in Chinese imports cost the U.S. 3.4 million jobs between 2001 and 2015—and about 75% of those jobs were in manufacturing.1 This partly explains why U.S. politicians are often focused on the bilateral trade deficit with China.
.
.

Pros and Cons of a Trade Deficit

Is a trade deficit beneficial or detrimental to a country's economy? A negative trade balance offers advantages and disadvantages.

www.investopedia.com

So, here's the trillion dollar question: what are you gonna do about a big trade deficit that doesn't hurt your own country's consumers and businesses?

Task0778, nation's nation's annual trade deficits, (i.e. negative balances of the nation's international trade) were ALWAYS net detrimental to their nations' annual GDP (of that same year). This is a statement of fact rather than opinion. It's a fact known and accepted by communities of economists and statisticians throughout the world.

If you wish to open a thread, or post to an existing thread discussing proposals for remedying USA's chronic annual trade deficits, I'd be pleased to join you and I will further discuss Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
I no longer have access to a properly working computer. Until my computer's repaired, my time's and opportunities to use public libraries' computers are limited. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[task0778]

First of all, I need to walk back this statement:

... However, I still have yet to see anything that states all or nearly all credible economists believe that a negative trade imbalance is always detrimental to a nation's GDP.

The net trade balance is indeed a factor in the GDP calculation, BUT - that GDP number is not necessarily a true indication of a nation's economic growth. What I was trying to say was that a negative trade imbalance is NOT always detrimental to a nation's economic growth.


... there is no consensus on the impact on imports on economic growth. While others argue imports have a negative impact on economic growth, others argue that increasing imports has a positive influence on economic growth. Supporters of protectionist policies often argue that imports create a decline in economic performance. They argue that imports have a negative impact on domestic firms because they reduce their market share by competing with them locally. This causes them to reduce production or in some cases shut down. This has always been the argument for supporting protection of certain industries from foreign competition in the domestic market. An increase in imports always raises concerns as it is interpreted as if the economy is worse off than before. However, free trade proponents often argue that in fact the contrary is true. Free trade proponents argue that, just like exports, imports are central in creating economic growth. They argue that imports consists of capital goods that are used in production of other goods and services. Therefore, they improve the production capacity of the economy consequently creating both economic growth and reducing employments. In addition, competition created by foreign firms is good in ensuring that domestic firms become competitive as only the competitive firms will survive. Therefore, the domestic firms will be better placed in competing with other firms in the global market. Lastly, trade creates mutual relationships as different parties and countries interact. It should be appreciated that US exports are imports in another country. If the US does not allow goods from other countries, the other countries may react and also block US goods from their markets creating lose-lose situations.

There are numerous studies that have been conducted on the impact of the imports on the gross domestic product. Zestos and Tao performed a comparative study for US and Canada to evaluate the impact of both the exports and imports on the economic performance for the two countries. Their study was conducted for the 1946 and 1996. Their study revealed that there is a significant positive relationship between imports and economic growth in both countries. However, the impact was bigger in Canada compared to the US. Another study by Ugur on the relationship between imports and economic growth in Turkey revealed a unidirectional relationship between imports and the GDP. The study used multivariate VAR analysis. A study Ghazali also revealed that there is a positive relationship between imports and exports in relation to economic growth of Malaysia. He recommended that the government should promote free trade in both exports and imports. A study conducted by Li, Greenway and Hin on the impact of import of services on the economic growth provided interesting results. The study revealed there is positive relationship between the two variables in developed countries. However, in developing countries importing services has a negative impact on the economic growth of those countries. It also showed that import of transport and travel services does not have any significant impact on the economic growth of both developed and developing countries. The study used cross sectional data for 82 countries. This study intend to use more recent data in testing the relationship between economic growth and imports. In addition this test will also control for the consumer price index to control for the effect of change in prices over time.

Impacts of imports on US Economic Growth - rushtermpapers

Words: 1459Pages: 6Subject: EssaysImpacts of imports on US Economic Growth Introduction Exports play an important role in in influencing the economic growth rate in any country. An increase in […]

www.rushtermpapers.com

Note that since 1976, the US has had a negative trade balance every year but has had some very good years of economic growth during that span of time. Note also that as mentioned in post #10, a positive trade balance does not necessarily mean better economic growth (Japan and Germany). Nor does a negative trade balance always mean lower economic growth either.

 

[Papageorgio]

Andaronjim, you can provide a link to a credible economists stating otherwise; one that denies due to for a nation's annual trade deficit their total gross domestic product was not less than otherwise? Respectfully, Supposn

Why should he? You didn't. Respectfully, Pops.

 

[Auld Phart]

Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.

I believe you'll find creditable economists do not refute that due to USA's annual trade deficits, the nation's domestic production was less than otherwise; (i.e. the nation's domestic products (more than otherwise), were net “crowded out” of all, [our USA domestic plus foreign] marketplaces.

Due to such “crowding out”, USA's domestic production was less than otherwise, and that in turn was net detrimental to USA's numbers of jobs.

Many creditable economists contend that the proportional differences between USA's annual GDP and our trade deficits are too small to have materially affected our domestic production, (i.e. the detrimental affects of our annual trade deficits are of lesser economic significance). But they do not refute that due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, our annual GDPs have been less than otherwise.

I agree with other credible economists contending due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, the lesser numbers of jobs and their lesser aggregate payroll amounts were of economic significance.
Furthermore, I'm among those contending nation's balances of trade understated their effects upon their nation's GDP; net international trades' amounts of contributions to trade surplus nations' and are detrimental to GDP. Respectfully, Supposn

No link to OP