Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Task0778:
Totally wrong. A trade deficit does negatively impact the GDP number, but it does not necessarily impact the number of jobs.

Task0778:
I'm pretty sure the positive effects of an increased purchasing power resulting from increased competition due to cheaper foreign products is an absolute boon to every US family cuz their dollars go a lot further. Especially the families at or below the poverty level.

Task:
A reduction in GDP (also known as a recession or depression) obviously results in a loss of jobs because consumption and investment both decline. BUT, recessions and depressions clearly do not occur due to trade deficits, otherwise the US would've been in serious trouble over the past 40 some years when trade deficits blew up. Why? Because a TD does not necessarily translate to less consumption and less investment.

Task0778, you misunderstood. It’s not contended that trade balances alone consequential determined the consequential increase or decrease of their nation’s annual GDPs; but they always contributed or reduced their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.

Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s GDP. Thus, for the years the nation experienced annual trade deficits, their GDP were less than otherwise); (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced annual trade deficits). Unless a nation is blessed with reasonably full employment, reduction of GDP is detrimental to numbers of jobs and affects wage scales.

Respectfully, Supposn

Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s GDP.

Bullshit

Respectfully, Toddsterpatriot

 

[task0778]

Task0778:
Totally wrong. A trade deficit does negatively impact the GDP number, but it does not necessarily impact the number of jobs.

Task0778:
I'm pretty sure the positive effects of an increased purchasing power resulting from increased competition due to cheaper foreign products is an absolute boon to every US family cuz their dollars go a lot further. Especially the families at or below the poverty level.

Task:
A reduction in GDP (also known as a recession or depression) obviously results in a loss of jobs because consumption and investment both decline. BUT, recessions and depressions clearly do not occur due to trade deficits, otherwise the US would've been in serious trouble over the past 40 some years when trade deficits blew up. Why? Because a TD does not necessarily translate to less consumption and less investment.

Task0778, you misunderstood. It’s not contended that trade balances alone consequential determined the consequential increase or decrease of their nation’s annual GDPs; but they always contributed or reduced their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.

Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s GDP. Thus, for the years the nation experienced annual trade deficits, their GDP were less than otherwise); (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced annual trade deficits). Unless a nation is blessed with reasonably full employment, reduction of GDP is detrimental to numbers of jobs and affects wage scales.

Respectfully, Supposn

A reduction of GDP may not be detrimental to jobs and wages IF it is due to a trade deficit, all other things being equal. Whether there is full employment or not. It may be that the deficit is due to the import of needed raw materials, without which the number of jobs and wages would be less than it would otherwise be. No doubt there are many factors involved, but to say that a trade deficit is always a bad thing is I think erroneous.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It may be that the deficit is due to the import of needed raw materials, without which the number of jobs and wages would be less than it would otherwise be. .

Importation of raw materials does not cause a deficit. If we import iron ore we pay the exporter in dollars. He does not burn the dollars, he or someone uses them to buy USA goods with dollars so imports then equal exports!!

a trade deficit mostly occurs when nobody wants to buy the junk you have to sell but will take your dollars anyway and use them to make you a loan, buy your real estate, or other natural resources.

 

[danielpalos]

It may be that the deficit is due to the import of needed raw materials, without which the number of jobs and wages would be less than it would otherwise be. .

Importation of raw materials does not cause a deficit. If we import iron ore we pay the exporter in dollars. He does not burn the dollars, he or someone uses them to buy USA goods with dollars so imports then equal exports!!

a trade deficit mostly occurs when nobody wants to buy the junk you have to sell but will take your dollars anyway and use them to make you a loan, buy your real estate, or other natural resources.

Want to draft, "the Memo" for Corporate America?

 

[task0778]

It may be that the deficit is due to the import of needed raw materials, without which the number of jobs and wages would be less than it would otherwise be. .

Importation of raw materials does not cause a deficit. If we import iron ore we pay the exporter in dollars. He does not burn the dollars, he or someone uses them to buy USA goods with dollars so imports then equal exports!!

a trade deficit mostly occurs when nobody wants to buy the junk you have to sell but will take your dollars anyway and use them to make you a loan, buy your real estate, or other natural resources.

Yeah it does. For the last few decades a large part of our TD has been due to imported oil. I would assume nobody would argue that had we not imported enough oil to support our economy and way of life we would have lost a lot more jobs and enjoyed less economic growth an well-being.

 

[task0778]

When a country persistently experiences a trade deficit there are predictable negative consequences that can affect economic growth and stability. If imports are more in demand than exports, domestic jobs may be lost to those abroad. While theoretically, this makes sense, the data suggests that unemployment levels can actually persist at very low levels even with a trade deficit, and high unemployment may occur in countries with surpluses. CAN, not WILL.
.
.
By definition, the balance of payments must always net out to zero. As a result, a trade deficit must be offset by a surplus in the country's capital account and financial account. This means that deficit nations experience a greater degree of foreign direct investment and foreign ownership of government debt. For a small country this could be detrimental, as a large proportion of the country's assets and resources become owned by foreigners who can then control and influence how those assets and resources are used. According to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not ever harmful in the long run because the currency will always come back to the country in some form or another, such as via foreign investment.
.
.
The Bottom Line
Economic theory suggests that persistent trade deficits will be detrimental to a nation's economic outlook by negatively impacting employment, growth, and devaluing its currency. The United States, as the world's largest deficit nation, has consistently proven these theories wrong. This may be due to the special status of the United States as the world's largest economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency.

Smaller countries certainly have experienced the negative effects that trade deficits can bring over time. Proponents of free markets, however, insist that any negative effects of trade deficits will correct themselves over time through exchange rate adjustments and through competition leading to a change in what a country produces. Large trade deficits may simply reflect consumer preferences and may not really matter much at all in the long run. Time will tell.



Read more: The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit | Investopedia The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit

When I did a little research I found out there are conflicting opinions on the impact of trade deficits, not surprisingly relative to one's political leanings. Righties say no big deal, Lefties say TDs are terrible. What I am convinced of is this:

1. Sometimes imports can cause job losses in a specific industry or segment of our economy.
2. BUT, lower prices due to increased competition in our marketplaces from those imports will result in a higher standard of living, especially for the bottom half of the income spectrum.
3. Which means those lower income people can buy more stuff, which means more jobs on other industries and segments that offsets the job losses in the businesses impacted by imports.
4. Protectionist policies do not work out well. If you slap tariffs, quotas, and the like on imports then you have upped the prices for those goods and services. Which means you have life tougher on those lower income people because now their dollars won't go as far. And not only that, but those foreign countries who affected by our protectionist actions are going to reciprocate, which means our exports will drop and guess what, we experience job losses.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For the last few decades a large part of our TD has been due to imported oil..

are you saying that when we buy oil with dollars the Saudis burn the dollars rather than spend them???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When a country persistently experiences a trade deficit there are predictable negative consequences that can affect economic growth and stability. If imports are more in demand than exports, domestic jobs may be lost to those abroad. While theoretically, this makes sense, the data suggests that unemployment levels can actually persist at very low levels even with a trade deficit, and high unemployment may occur in countries with surpluses. CAN, not WILL.
.
.
By definition, the balance of payments must always net out to zero. As a result, a trade deficit must be offset by a surplus in the country's capital account and financial account. This means that deficit nations experience a greater degree of foreign direct investment and foreign ownership of government debt. For a small country this could be detrimental, as a large proportion of the country's assets and resources become owned by foreigners who can then control and influence how those assets and resources are used. According to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not ever harmful in the long run because the currency will always come back to the country in some form or another, such as via foreign investment.
.
.
The Bottom Line
Economic theory suggests that persistent trade deficits will be detrimental to a nation's economic outlook by negatively impacting employment, growth, and devaluing its currency. The United States, as the world's largest deficit nation, has consistently proven these theories wrong. This may be due to the special status of the United States as the world's largest economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency.

Smaller countries certainly have experienced the negative effects that trade deficits can bring over time. Proponents of free markets, however, insist that any negative effects of trade deficits will correct themselves over time through exchange rate adjustments and through competition leading to a change in what a country produces. Large trade deficits may simply reflect consumer preferences and may not really matter much at all in the long run. Time will tell.



Read more: The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit | Investopedia The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit

When I did a little research I found out there are conflicting opinions on the impact of trade deficits, not surprisingly relative to one's political leanings. Righties say no big deal, Lefties say TDs are terrible. What I am convinced of is this:

1. Sometimes imports can cause job losses in a specific industry or segment of our economy.
2. BUT, lower prices due to increased competition in our marketplaces from those imports will result in a higher standard of living, especially for the bottom half of the income spectrum.
3. Which means those lower income people can buy more stuff, which means more jobs on other industries and segments that offsets the job losses in the businesses impacted by imports.
4. Protectionist policies do not work out well. If you slap tariffs, quotas, and the like on imports then you have upped the prices for those goods and services. Which means you have life tougher on those lower income people because now their dollars won't go as far. And not only that, but those foreign countries who affected by our protectionist actions are going to reciprocate, which means our exports will drop and guess what, we experience job losses.

cut and paste rambling rant. Do you have any idea what your subject is let alone what your point is??

 

[task0778]

For the last few decades a large part of our TD has been due to imported oil..

are you saying that when we buy oil with dollars the Saudis burn the dollars rather than spend them???

No, let's not descend into idiocy. They're going to buy our debt or they're going to invest it somehow.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, let's not descend into idiocy. They're going to buy our debt or they're going to invest it somehow.

so then how can you have a trade deficit??

 

[task0778]

When a country persistently experiences a trade deficit there are predictable negative consequences that can affect economic growth and stability. If imports are more in demand than exports, domestic jobs may be lost to those abroad. While theoretically, this makes sense, the data suggests that unemployment levels can actually persist at very low levels even with a trade deficit, and high unemployment may occur in countries with surpluses. CAN, not WILL.
.
.
By definition, the balance of payments must always net out to zero. As a result, a trade deficit must be offset by a surplus in the country's capital account and financial account. This means that deficit nations experience a greater degree of foreign direct investment and foreign ownership of government debt. For a small country this could be detrimental, as a large proportion of the country's assets and resources become owned by foreigners who can then control and influence how those assets and resources are used. According to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not ever harmful in the long run because the currency will always come back to the country in some form or another, such as via foreign investment.
.
.
The Bottom Line
Economic theory suggests that persistent trade deficits will be detrimental to a nation's economic outlook by negatively impacting employment, growth, and devaluing its currency. The United States, as the world's largest deficit nation, has consistently proven these theories wrong. This may be due to the special status of the United States as the world's largest economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency.

Smaller countries certainly have experienced the negative effects that trade deficits can bring over time. Proponents of free markets, however, insist that any negative effects of trade deficits will correct themselves over time through exchange rate adjustments and through competition leading to a change in what a country produces. Large trade deficits may simply reflect consumer preferences and may not really matter much at all in the long run. Time will tell.



Read more: The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit | Investopedia The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit

When I did a little research I found out there are conflicting opinions on the impact of trade deficits, not surprisingly relative to one's political leanings. Righties say no big deal, Lefties say TDs are terrible. What I am convinced of is this:

1. Sometimes imports can cause job losses in a specific industry or segment of our economy.
2. BUT, lower prices due to increased competition in our marketplaces from those imports will result in a higher standard of living, especially for the bottom half of the income spectrum.
3. Which means those lower income people can buy more stuff, which means more jobs on other industries and segments that offsets the job losses in the businesses impacted by imports.
4. Protectionist policies do not work out well. If you slap tariffs, quotas, and the like on imports then you have upped the prices for those goods and services. Which means you have life tougher on those lower income people because now their dollars won't go as far. And not only that, but those foreign countries who affected by our protectionist actions are going to reciprocate, which means our exports will drop and guess what, we experience job losses.

cut and paste rambling rant. Do you have any idea what your subject is let alone what your point is??

Too many big words? It's a forum on economics, which in this case is talking about trade deficits. So I put my thoughts out there, you don't have to agree or respond.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When a country persistently experiences a trade deficit there are predictable negative consequences that can affect economic growth and stability. If imports are more in demand than exports, domestic jobs may be lost to those abroad. While theoretically, this makes sense, the data suggests that unemployment levels can actually persist at very low levels even with a trade deficit, and high unemployment may occur in countries with surpluses. CAN, not WILL.
.
.
By definition, the balance of payments must always net out to zero. As a result, a trade deficit must be offset by a surplus in the country's capital account and financial account. This means that deficit nations experience a greater degree of foreign direct investment and foreign ownership of government debt. For a small country this could be detrimental, as a large proportion of the country's assets and resources become owned by foreigners who can then control and influence how those assets and resources are used. According to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not ever harmful in the long run because the currency will always come back to the country in some form or another, such as via foreign investment.
.
.
The Bottom Line
Economic theory suggests that persistent trade deficits will be detrimental to a nation's economic outlook by negatively impacting employment, growth, and devaluing its currency. The United States, as the world's largest deficit nation, has consistently proven these theories wrong. This may be due to the special status of the United States as the world's largest economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency.

Smaller countries certainly have experienced the negative effects that trade deficits can bring over time. Proponents of free markets, however, insist that any negative effects of trade deficits will correct themselves over time through exchange rate adjustments and through competition leading to a change in what a country produces. Large trade deficits may simply reflect consumer preferences and may not really matter much at all in the long run. Time will tell.



Read more: The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit | Investopedia The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit

When I did a little research I found out there are conflicting opinions on the impact of trade deficits, not surprisingly relative to one's political leanings. Righties say no big deal, Lefties say TDs are terrible. What I am convinced of is this:

1. Sometimes imports can cause job losses in a specific industry or segment of our economy.
2. BUT, lower prices due to increased competition in our marketplaces from those imports will result in a higher standard of living, especially for the bottom half of the income spectrum.
3. Which means those lower income people can buy more stuff, which means more jobs on other industries and segments that offsets the job losses in the businesses impacted by imports.
4. Protectionist policies do not work out well. If you slap tariffs, quotas, and the like on imports then you have upped the prices for those goods and services. Which means you have life tougher on those lower income people because now their dollars won't go as far. And not only that, but those foreign countries who affected by our protectionist actions are going to reciprocate, which means our exports will drop and guess what, we experience job losses.

cut and paste rambling rant. Do you have any idea what your subject is let alone what your point is??

Too many big words? It's a forum on economics, which in this case is talking about trade deficits. So I put my thoughts out there, you don't have to agree or respond.

do you know what your point was??????

 

[task0778]

No, let's not descend into idiocy. They're going to buy our debt or they're going to invest it somehow.

so then how can you have a trade deficit??

Read up on trade deficits and the balance of payments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, let's not descend into idiocy. They're going to buy our debt or they're going to invest it somehow.

so then how can you have a trade deficit??

Read up on trade deficits and the balance of payments.

so you don't know the answer???

 

[task0778]

When a country persistently experiences a trade deficit there are predictable negative consequences that can affect economic growth and stability. If imports are more in demand than exports, domestic jobs may be lost to those abroad. While theoretically, this makes sense, the data suggests that unemployment levels can actually persist at very low levels even with a trade deficit, and high unemployment may occur in countries with surpluses. CAN, not WILL.
.
.
By definition, the balance of payments must always net out to zero. As a result, a trade deficit must be offset by a surplus in the country's capital account and financial account. This means that deficit nations experience a greater degree of foreign direct investment and foreign ownership of government debt. For a small country this could be detrimental, as a large proportion of the country's assets and resources become owned by foreigners who can then control and influence how those assets and resources are used. According to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not ever harmful in the long run because the currency will always come back to the country in some form or another, such as via foreign investment.
.
.
The Bottom Line
Economic theory suggests that persistent trade deficits will be detrimental to a nation's economic outlook by negatively impacting employment, growth, and devaluing its currency. The United States, as the world's largest deficit nation, has consistently proven these theories wrong. This may be due to the special status of the United States as the world's largest economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency.

Smaller countries certainly have experienced the negative effects that trade deficits can bring over time. Proponents of free markets, however, insist that any negative effects of trade deficits will correct themselves over time through exchange rate adjustments and through competition leading to a change in what a country produces. Large trade deficits may simply reflect consumer preferences and may not really matter much at all in the long run. Time will tell.



Read more: The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit | Investopedia The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit

When I did a little research I found out there are conflicting opinions on the impact of trade deficits, not surprisingly relative to one's political leanings. Righties say no big deal, Lefties say TDs are terrible. What I am convinced of is this:

1. Sometimes imports can cause job losses in a specific industry or segment of our economy.
2. BUT, lower prices due to increased competition in our marketplaces from those imports will result in a higher standard of living, especially for the bottom half of the income spectrum.
3. Which means those lower income people can buy more stuff, which means more jobs on other industries and segments that offsets the job losses in the businesses impacted by imports.
4. Protectionist policies do not work out well. If you slap tariffs, quotas, and the like on imports then you have upped the prices for those goods and services. Which means you have life tougher on those lower income people because now their dollars won't go as far. And not only that, but those foreign countries who affected by our protectionist actions are going to reciprocate, which means our exports will drop and guess what, we experience job losses.

cut and paste rambling rant. Do you have any idea what your subject is let alone what your point is??

Too many big words? It's a forum on economics, which in this case is talking about trade deficits. So I put my thoughts out there, you don't have to agree or respond.

do you know what your point was??????

Yes. My point was that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it necessarily translate into net lost jobs or a poorer economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My point was that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing,.

so it can be a good thing when people don't want to buy your stuff??????? How?????

 

[task0778]

No, let's not descend into idiocy. They're going to buy our debt or they're going to invest it somehow.

so then how can you have a trade deficit??

Read up on trade deficits and the balance of payments.

so you don't know the answer???

Pretty sure I do. Also pretty sure you are deliberately trying to provoke a fight that I have no interest in engaging in. I'm done here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, let's not descend into idiocy. They're going to buy our debt or they're going to invest it somehow.

so then how can you have a trade deficit??

Read up on trade deficits and the balance of payments.

so you don't know the answer???

Pretty sure I do. Also pretty sure you are deliberately trying to provoke a fight that I have no interest in engaging in. I'm done here.

how will you learn if you are afraid to try?

 

[task0778]

No, let's not descend into idiocy. They're going to buy our debt or they're going to invest it somehow.

so then how can you have a trade deficit??

Read up on trade deficits and the balance of payments.

so you don't know the answer???

Pretty sure I do. Also pretty sure you are deliberately trying to provoke a fight that I have no interest in engaging in. I'm done here.

how will you learn if you are afraid to try?

Go fuck yourself Ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so then how can you have a trade deficit??

Read up on trade deficits and the balance of payments.

so you don't know the answer???

Pretty sure I do. Also pretty sure you are deliberately trying to provoke a fight that I have no interest in engaging in. I'm done here.

how will you learn if you are afraid to try?

Go fuck yourself Ed.

why be afraid to learn???