How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Supposn

Gold Member
Jul 26, 2009
2,608
310
130
How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

and so you want to make them illegal with always escalating trade wars [that can lead to real wars] between individuals, cities, regions, states, and countries so all will have higher GDP's.

only the childish mind of a liberal would think such simple solutions can solve problems.
 
[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 17205942, member: 34008]and so you want to make them illegal with always escalating trade wars [that can lead to real wars] between individuals, cities, regions, states, and countries so all will have higher GDP's.

only the childish mind of a liberal would think such simple solutions can solve problems.[/QUOTE]

Edward Baiamonte, trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. They are particularly net detrimental to employees and their families.

You advocate USA continue acquiescing to lower wage nations’ products price advantages over our products in markets within our borders, in order not to upset other nations. I disagree with your priorities.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven and would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Your mention of war is due to your lack of logic and your paranoiac delusions.

///////////////////////////////////

After USA’s Revolutionary War, we became among, (if not the most) liberal nation then existing.
As time passed, more nations have turned as we, (previously British colonies did), to be lesser autocratic or oligarchism.

Other nations’ titular heads may also be addressed as presidents or as monarchs, or prime-ministers; their legislative chambers may be described by titles other than “congress”; but the trend is for nations governments transforming to be bound to the limits of written constitutions; their leadership determined by democratic elections; (i.e. the historic trend of these last centuries has been for national governments evolving to be more liberal).

More liberal governments’ policy determining leaders are more generally selected by their citizens’ votes; they’re generally democratic republics (regardless of the government’s titular head’s title). Another characteristic of more liberal governments has been their citizens’ expectations and legal entitlements of rights.
[These rights are in a general manner referred to within the preamble of the United States Constitution, and more specifically within all levels of USA’s laws and regulations.]

The historic trend has also been for all the nation’s citizens and to some lesser extent to all others within the nation to be entitled to some explicitly stated considerations for their safety, education, health, and wellbeing.

Historic trends, (social behaviors, societies do not generally progress consistently with no interruptions or setbacks that are to a significant extent due to wealth’s' greater influence within governments. They're "on the wrong side of history”.
Now that I’m retired and have some time to respond to such posts; this post’s a public service.


I wish you well, Supposn
 
Edward Baiamonte, trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. They are particularly net detrimental to employees and their families.

You advocate USA continue acquiescing to lower wage nations’ products price advantages over our products in markets within our borders, in order not to upset other nations. I disagree with your priorities.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven and would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Your mention of war is due to your lack of logic and your paranoiac delusions.

///////////////////////////////////

After USA’s Revolutionary War, we became among, (if not the most) liberal nation then existing.
As time passed, more nations have turned as we, (previously British colonies did), to be lesser autocratic or oligarchism.

Other nations’ titular heads may also be addressed as presidents or as monarchs, or prime-ministers; their legislative chambers may be described by titles other than “congress”; but the trend is for nations governments transforming to be bound to the limits of written constitutions; their leadership determined by democratic elections; (i.e. the historic trend of these last centuries has been for national governments evolving to be more liberal).

More liberal governments’ policy determining leaders are more generally selected by their citizens’ votes; they’re generally democratic republics (regardless of the government’s titular head’s title). Another characteristic of more liberal governments has been their citizens’ expectations and legal entitlements of rights.
[These rights are in a general manner referred to within the preamble of the United States Constitution, and more specifically within all levels of USA’s laws and regulations.]

The historic trend has also been for all the nation’s citizens and to some lesser extent to all others within the nation to be entitled to some explicitly stated considerations for their safety, education, health, and wellbeing.

Historic trends, (social behaviors, societies do not generally progress consistently with no interruptions or setbacks that are to a significant extent due to wealth’s' greater influence within governments. They're "on the wrong side of history”.
Now that I’m retired and have some time to respond to such posts; this post’s a public service.


I wish you well, Supposn

trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise

Bullshit.
No matter how many times you repeat your drivel.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven

Market driven would mean shrinking, not increasing government interference.
 
[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 17205942, member: 34008]and so you want to make them illegal with always escalating trade wars [that can lead to real wars] between individuals, cities, regions, states, and countries so all will have higher GDP's.

only the childish mind of a liberal would think such simple solutions can solve problems.

Edward Baiamonte, trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. They are particularly net detrimental to employees and their families.

You advocate USA continue acquiescing to lower wage nations’ products price advantages over our products in markets within our borders, in order not to upset other nations. I disagree with your priorities.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven and would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Your mention of war is due to your lack of logic and your paranoiac delusions.

///////////////////////////////////

After USA’s Revolutionary War, we became among, (if not the most) liberal nation then existing.
As time passed, more nations have turned as we, (previously British colonies did), to be lesser autocratic or oligarchism.

Other nations’ titular heads may also be addressed as presidents or as monarchs, or prime-ministers; their legislative chambers may be described by titles other than “congress”; but the trend is for nations governments transforming to be bound to the limits of written constitutions; their leadership determined by democratic elections; (i.e. the historic trend of these last centuries has been for national governments evolving to be more liberal).

More liberal governments’ policy determining leaders are more generally selected by their citizens’ votes; they’re generally democratic republics (regardless of the government’s titular head’s title). Another characteristic of more liberal governments has been their citizens’ expectations and legal entitlements of rights.
[These rights are in a general manner referred to within the preamble of the United States Constitution, and more specifically within all levels of USA’s laws and regulations.]

The historic trend has also been for all the nation’s citizens and to some lesser extent to all others within the nation to be entitled to some explicitly stated considerations for their safety, education, health, and wellbeing.

Historic trends, (social behaviors, societies do not generally progress consistently with no interruptions or setbacks that are to a significant extent due to wealth’s' greater influence within governments. They're "on the wrong side of history”.
Now that I’m retired and have some time to respond to such posts; this post’s a public service.


I wish you well, Supposn[/QUOTE]
Liberal moron can retire to spam talking points 1000 times
but can't answer questions once.
 
How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.
 
ToddsterPatriot, post, the proposed trade deficit described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article sensitivity to markets is no less than that of “pure free trade”; but due the behaviors of global Import Certificate markets, it’s more sensitive to global markets.

As with free trade, all of imports net costs are entirely passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
Within the proposed USA policy, any passed on costs that are beyond the federal direct expenditures due to the policy, are market determined. These markets determined costs serve as indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods.

If USA purchasers “balk” at paying more for imported goods, the additional prices of such goods will be less, and it will be increased if they’re willing to pay more. Simultaneously but in an inverse fashion, foreign demand for USA’s exported goods affect the prices passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.

This policy would not and could not prevent the importation of any items for which there’s effective USA demand.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.

No they aren't.

ToddsterPatriot, to whatever extent the earth’s flat rather than a globe, and global, an intelligent design rather than evolution explains the progress of life on this earth, USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods are not net detrimental to our GDPs, numbers of jobs, and our entire economy.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.


Daniel Palos, Paul Ryan and other Republicans are proposing our corporate income tax regulations should cease allowing reductions of taxable incomes due to importing products into the USA; (i.e. they’re proposing a “destination based tax” policy. This would certainly reduce our annual trade deficits. but I have doubts as to its enforceability.

The IRS could ignore enterprises’ payments to USA entities that include payments for foreign goods and services; this would be depending upon the U.S. entities receiving those payments are required to declare those income revenues as corporate incomes; that’s feasible.

What about payments to non-USA entities; entities that are not even USA entities that are subsidiaries of foreign enterprises and thus are not under federal jurisdiction and IRS oversight?

How do you identify and reject tax deductions for any direct or indirect expenditures going overseas for the purchase of foreign goods and services?
If the IRS cannot identify and parse such payments from all other payments to foreign entities, how can the IRS effectively enforce the denial of tax deductions for the purchases of foreign goods and services? Additionally, USA financial institutions could be employed to transfer those payments without identifying their purposes.
I support the concept of destination based taxing but as it was described, but I doubt if it's resonably enforceable.


Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 17205942, member: 34008]and so you want to make them illegal with always escalating trade wars [that can lead to real wars] between individuals, cities, regions, states, and countries so all will have higher GDP's.

only the childish mind of a liberal would think such simple solutions can solve problems.
Edward Baiamonte, ... You advocate USA continue acquiescing to lower wage nations’ products price advantages over our products in markets within our borders, in order not to upset other nations. I disagree with your priorities.
The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven and would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Your mention of war is due to your lack of logic and your paranoiac delusions. ...
... I wish you well, Supposn
Liberal moron can retire to spam talking points 1000 times
but can't answer questions once.[/QUOTE]

Edward Baiamonte, asked and answered.
You repeatingly ask and I generally repeat a similar answer to your similar question. You cannot take the truth or deal with a logical answer.

I wish you well and hope you become well, Supposn
 
ToddsterPatriot, post, the proposed trade deficit described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article sensitivity to markets is no less than that of “pure free trade”; but due the behaviors of global Import Certificate markets, it’s more sensitive to global markets.

As with free trade, all of imports net costs are entirely passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
Within the proposed USA policy, any passed on costs that are beyond the federal direct expenditures due to the policy, are market determined. These markets determined costs serve as indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods.

If USA purchasers “balk” at paying more for imported goods, the additional prices of such goods will be less, and it will be increased if they’re willing to pay more. Simultaneously but in an inverse fashion, foreign demand for USA’s exported goods affect the prices passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.

This policy would not and could not prevent the importation of any items for which there’s effective USA demand.

Respectfully, Supposn
Laissez-fair, all the way, right wingers!
 
Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.

No they aren't.

ToddsterPatriot, to whatever extent the earth’s flat rather than a globe, and global, an intelligent design rather than evolution explains the progress of life on this earth, USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods are not net detrimental to our GDPs, numbers of jobs, and our entire economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

A negative balance of trade, means we need better products at potentially lower cost.

"In the foregoing part of this chapter I have endeavoured to show, even upon the principles of the commercial system, how unnecessary it is to lay extraordinary restraints upon the importation of goods from those countries with which the balance of trade is supposed to be disadvantageous. Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this [absurd] doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium." (Smith, 1776, book IV, ch. iii, part ii) [14]
 
Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.


Daniel Palos, Paul Ryan and other Republicans are proposing our corporate income tax regulations should cease allowing reductions of taxable incomes due to importing products into the USA; (i.e. they’re proposing a “destination based tax” policy. This would certainly reduce our annual trade deficits. but I have doubts as to its enforceability.

The IRS could ignore enterprises’ payments to USA entities that include payments for foreign goods and services; this would be depending upon the U.S. entities receiving those payments are required to declare those income revenues as corporate incomes; that’s feasible.

What about payments to non-USA entities; entities that are not even USA entities that are subsidiaries of foreign enterprises and thus are not under federal jurisdiction and IRS oversight?

How do you identify and reject tax deductions for any direct or indirect expenditures going overseas for the purchase of foreign goods and services?
If the IRS cannot identify and parse such payments from all other payments to foreign entities, how can the IRS effectively enforce the denial of tax deductions for the purchases of foreign goods and services? Additionally, USA financial institutions could be employed to transfer those payments without identifying their purposes.
I support the concept of destination based taxing but as it was described, but I doubt if it's resonably enforceable.


Respectfully, Supposn
seems more like a "shell game with statism", to me. Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.
 
ToddsterPatriot, post, the proposed trade deficit described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article sensitivity to markets is no less than that of “pure free trade”; but due the behaviors of global Import Certificate markets, it’s more sensitive to global markets.

As with free trade, all of imports net costs are entirely passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
Within the proposed USA policy, any passed on costs that are beyond the federal direct expenditures due to the policy, are market determined. These markets determined costs serve as indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods.

If USA purchasers “balk” at paying more for imported goods, the additional prices of such goods will be less, and it will be increased if they’re willing to pay more. Simultaneously but in an inverse fashion, foreign demand for USA’s exported goods affect the prices passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.

This policy would not and could not prevent the importation of any items for which there’s effective USA demand.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah, a stupid idea. Even if you post it a dozen more times.
 
ToddsterPatriot, post, the proposed trade deficit described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article sensitivity to markets is no less than that of “pure free trade”; but due the behaviors of global Import Certificate markets, it’s more sensitive to global markets.

As with free trade, all of imports net costs are entirely passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
Within the proposed USA policy, any passed on costs that are beyond the federal direct expenditures due to the policy, are market determined. These markets determined costs serve as indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods.

If USA purchasers “balk” at paying more for imported goods, the additional prices of such goods will be less, and it will be increased if they’re willing to pay more. Simultaneously but in an inverse fashion, foreign demand for USA’s exported goods affect the prices passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.

This policy would not and could not prevent the importation of any items for which there’s effective USA demand.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah, a stupid idea. Even if you post it a dozen more times.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm awed by your incisive analysis and response to my post.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
ToddsterPatriot, post, the proposed trade deficit described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article sensitivity to markets is no less than that of “pure free trade”; but due the behaviors of global Import Certificate markets, it’s more sensitive to global markets.

As with free trade, all of imports net costs are entirely passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
Within the proposed USA policy, any passed on costs that are beyond the federal direct expenditures due to the policy, are market determined. These markets determined costs serve as indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods.

If USA purchasers “balk” at paying more for imported goods, the additional prices of such goods will be less, and it will be increased if they’re willing to pay more. Simultaneously but in an inverse fashion, foreign demand for USA’s exported goods affect the prices passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.

This policy would not and could not prevent the importation of any items for which there’s effective USA demand.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah, a stupid idea. Even if you post it a dozen more times.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm awed by your incisive analysis and response to my post.
Respectfully, Supposn

It gets the analysis it deserves.
 

Forum List

Back
Top