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

[Supposn]

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

 

[cnm]

I think you need to repeat your points a few more times to make sure everyone gets them.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

Just because you say it, doesnt make it true...

 

[Supposn]

Just because you say it, doesnt make it true...

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

Which imported inputs are a net benefit to US GDP?

 

[Oddball]

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

Just who are these yet unnamed "credible economists"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just who are these yet unnamed "credible economists"?

He thinks 20,000 - 950 = 19,050 is some sort of great discovery.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

Funny, my response was about you providing a credible link, not just paste some BS that you saw on the internet. Where is the link?


Oh and another thing, most credible economist, always over or under estimates things going on in the economy. If you listen to them, then you are a fool.

 

[task0778]

Just who are these yet unnamed "credible economists"?

And where is the link to them?

 

[task0778]

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?

 

[Supposn]

Supposn:
... I believe you'll find credible 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. ... Respectfully, Supposn
///////////
Andoronjim:
Funny, my response was about you providing a credible link, not just paste some BS that you saw on the internet. Where is the link?
Oh and another thing, most credible economist, always over or under estimates things going on in the economy. If you listen to them, then you are a fool.
////////////////
AndoronJim, you expecting me to guess which economist you consider credible and provide a link to that economist, I suppose extermely few, if any any creditable economists have refuted annual trade deficits detriments to their nation's GDP.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Task0778, a trade deficit indicates the nations' entire purchases of goods and service products exceeded their net GDP; (i.e. net purchases by their governments, enterprises, and retail consumers exceeded their entire net productions.)

USA's great annual trade deficits are particularly detrimental to our nation's employees, employees' dependents, and enterprises sensitive to the well-being of those portions of our population.
I'm among the proponents for the trade policy described in Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article. Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Oh and another thing, most credible economist, always over or under estimates things going on in the economy. If you listen to them, then you are a fool.

AndoronJim, if you expect estimates to be exact, you don't well understand our language.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[task0778]

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

Do you not think it is odd that neither political party has championed this proposal? You say the situation is dire and this idea would address the problem, yet nobody is for it. Why is that, do you think? Apparently those who support this idea are somewhat in the minority, and I do not refer to the GOP in this instance. Why?

In essence, the Proceeds from the sale of ICs would encourage exporters (who would gain that extra money in addition to the proceeds of their exports) and discourage importers (who would need to pay the additional cost to acquire ICs as well as the cost to acquire the goods they are importing). This system would essentially create a broad-based tariff on imports to the United States, and subsidy for exports – compare cap and trade, which creates a similar market in pollution.

Import certificates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sounds an awful lot like big gov't assuming more control over our economy to me, and I have doubts that such a proposal would be constitutional anyway.

Import Certificate prices are market rather than government driven

You can't convince me that the gov't won't be giving special consideration to their supporters, either increasing their export subsidy or adding them to the list of receivers. Or exempting importers that support the party in power. It WILL be gov't managed and driven.

The Import Certificate (IC) market price (per dollar of face value) is eventually an additional cost to USA purchasers’ of foreign goods. The IC price is directly dependent upon the USA’s purchasers’ aggregate willingness to pay additionally for foreign goods.

So, we are talking about artificially raising prices, otherwise known as inflation courtesy of gov't intervention. If you run a business that requires foreign raw materials to make your product and you add this req't to pay extra for an IC, you are going to force many of them to move offshore or to a RTW state or go out of business. It's great for the exporters, but not so good for everyone else. And not only that, but any domestic businesses that make and sell that product will increase their prices to approach the price of the foreign import. Profit to be had, thanks to Uncle Sam.

Then there's the blowback from the foreign businesses that we import stuff from. The IC adds to the cost of their product, same as a tariff. Do you not think they will reciprocate in kind? Tell me, does any other country do this? Where does it work and how do they do it? I think it's a bad idea, for several reasons listed above.

 

[Supposn]

Do you not think it is odd that neither political party has championed this proposal? You say the situation is dire and this idea would address the problem, yet nobody is for it. Why is that, do you think? Apparently those who support this idea are somewhat in the minority, and I do not refer to the GOP in this instance. Why? ...

Do you not think it is odd that neither political party has championed this proposal? You say the situation is dire and this idea would address the problem, yet nobody is for it. Why is that, do you think? Apparently those who support this idea are somewhat in the minority, and I do not refer to the GOP in this instance. Why?

Task0778, you're speculating as to why not (until possibly 2003), nothing regarding the international trade concept of import certificates was not published? I too often speculate as to "what ifs" or why did it take so long for some concepts, or devices, or occurrences to have occurred, or been created, or discovered? Why did so many years, decades, or centuries pass prior to their first being utilized, and/or generally accepted?

I don't know why so many people continue doubting what has been generally accepted by all, or almost entirely all credible economists. The same concept of a nation's gross domestic product, (GDP)is understood and accepted within economic and statistical communities throughout the world.
It's understood individual nations' total net balance of the GDPs of surplus balanced increase, and reduce the GDPs of trade deficit nations reduce their GDPs more than otherwise.

Can you provide a link to a statement by an economist you consider to be credible, within which the economist refutes that description of trade balances' affects upon their nation's GDP?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... You, {supposn] say the situation is dire and this idea would address the problem, yet nobody is for it. Why is that, do you think? Apparently those who support this idea are somewhat in the minority, and I do not refer to the GOP in this instance. Why? ...

Task0778, did I ever post that USA's great annual trade deficits were a "dire" economic detriment to USA's economy?
Major nations' individual laws and policies do not, (proportional to their economies) substantially affect their nation. But certainly nations' laws and policies in aggregate incrementally contribute or are detrimental to their individual nation.

Even among economists and educators, comparatively few people are aware of the comparatively unknown import certificate concept for a nation's international trade policy.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[task0778]

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

Show me the link that states all or almost entirely all credible economists support the idea of import certificates. It's a leftist idea, designed to allow the federal gov't more control over the economy, so why don't I hear Pelosi and Schumer advocating for it? I got a couple of thoughts about that: maybe it isn't politically palatable, the democrats bitched like hell over Trump's tariffs on the Chinese stuff coming into the US, and the IC idea is tantamount to a tariff in that it raises the price of products available to US consumers. Or maybe the cost of implementing the concept made it too implausible, or it would open up too many lawsuits against the gov't for unequal treatment. Or maybe it's flat out unconstitutional. This guy exports stuff and gets money while I import stuff and have to pay extra?

Can you provide a link to a statement by an economist you consider to be credible, within which the economist refutes that description of trade balances' affects upon their nation's GDP?

Adam Hayes is a financial writer with 15+ years Wall Street experience as a derivatives trader. Besides his extensive derivative trading expertise, Adam is an expert in economics and behavioral finance. Adam received his master's in economics from The New School for Social Research and his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in sociology. He is a CFA charterholder as well as holding FINRA Series 7 & 63 licenses. He currently researches and teaches at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

He writes:

Trade Deficits and Economic Growth​

Not Clearly Linked​

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.


Some economists say trade deficits necessarily hurt employment, at least in specific sectors. But others point to offsetting job growth in other areas.

Trade Deficits and Employment​

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.

 

[Supposn]

Show me the link that states all or almost entirely all credible economists support the idea of import certificates. ,,,

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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?

 

[task0778]

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

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. I have no doubt that Warren Buffet supports the idea because of course he's the one that offered it almost 20 years ago, and I have no doubt that you can find a few economists to support that idea. BUT - nobody lately and to claim that "all or nearly all" credible economists support import certificates has yet to be shown. Frankly, I don't believe that is the case, I did find an essay and an article or 2 about ICs that seem to be positive, but that's a long way from what you claimed.