Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 **** yourself Ed.

Special Ed is a dim one.

 

[Penelope]

thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars. The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade since our goods are not competitive and our financial assets get more costly in dollars until trade eventually slows and stops. So what happens along the way is:
1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers.

The only solution for Americans is to eliminate taxes and most regulations to become competitive again.

EdwardBaiamonte, both the quality and price of products are affected by the time and quality of labor that was devoted to the products. (Note; differing quality of labor command differing wage rates).

The price advantages of imports from lower-wage nations exist even among their mass-produced products; labor’s required to create and maintain the mass production tools, assembly lines and infrastructures to support the production of goods].

USA’s labor or management are not at fault because they’re unable to compete with foreign nation’s lower wages’ purchasing powers. We should not fault USA purchasers because they seek the optimum value for the money they spend.
We must all function within our environment. USA’s trade policies encourage our annual trade deficits. Change the policies and we change purchasing decisions.

Your equating our inability to produce cheaply as being an inability to produce quality is nonsense.

Regarding your general comment that we reduce taxes rather than modifying our trade policies:
The purposes of those taxes are to provide government tax revenues.
Please refer me to the discussion thread where you explain which expenditures we no longer need to fund or did you intend we reduce tax revenues and increase federal borrowing?

I don’t doubt that you have a list of expenditures in mind but many of us others also have a list. Our lists do not correlate with your list. I’m more inclined to believe that our government is not spending too much but rather we are not receiving the best values for our amounts of spending.

Respectfully, Supposn

the corporate tax shipped 10 million jobs off shore and is totally stupid anyway since it is passed on to consumers. We have only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Its not about corp tax , its about wages.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars. The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade since our goods are not competitive and our financial assets get more costly in dollars until trade eventually slows and stops. So what happens along the way is:
1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers.

The only solution for Americans is to eliminate taxes and most regulations to become competitive again.

EdwardBaiamonte, both the quality and price of products are affected by the time and quality of labor that was devoted to the products. (Note; differing quality of labor command differing wage rates).

The price advantages of imports from lower-wage nations exist even among their mass-produced products; labor’s required to create and maintain the mass production tools, assembly lines and infrastructures to support the production of goods].

USA’s labor or management are not at fault because they’re unable to compete with foreign nation’s lower wages’ purchasing powers. We should not fault USA purchasers because they seek the optimum value for the money they spend.
We must all function within our environment. USA’s trade policies encourage our annual trade deficits. Change the policies and we change purchasing decisions.

Your equating our inability to produce cheaply as being an inability to produce quality is nonsense.

Regarding your general comment that we reduce taxes rather than modifying our trade policies:
The purposes of those taxes are to provide government tax revenues.
Please refer me to the discussion thread where you explain which expenditures we no longer need to fund or did you intend we reduce tax revenues and increase federal borrowing?

I don’t doubt that you have a list of expenditures in mind but many of us others also have a list. Our lists do not correlate with your list. I’m more inclined to believe that our government is not spending too much but rather we are not receiving the best values for our amounts of spending.

Respectfully, Supposn

the corporate tax shipped 10 million jobs off shore and is totally stupid anyway since it is passed on to consumers. We have only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Its not about corp tax , its about wages.

if you raise the corporate tax to highest in world our best corporations move out to stay competitive and their workers must find new lower wage jobs

 

[Penelope]

thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars. The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade since our goods are not competitive and our financial assets get more costly in dollars until trade eventually slows and stops. So what happens along the way is:
1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers.

The only solution for Americans is to eliminate taxes and most regulations to become competitive again.

EdwardBaiamonte, both the quality and price of products are affected by the time and quality of labor that was devoted to the products. (Note; differing quality of labor command differing wage rates).

The price advantages of imports from lower-wage nations exist even among their mass-produced products; labor’s required to create and maintain the mass production tools, assembly lines and infrastructures to support the production of goods].

USA’s labor or management are not at fault because they’re unable to compete with foreign nation’s lower wages’ purchasing powers. We should not fault USA purchasers because they seek the optimum value for the money they spend.
We must all function within our environment. USA’s trade policies encourage our annual trade deficits. Change the policies and we change purchasing decisions.

Your equating our inability to produce cheaply as being an inability to produce quality is nonsense.

Regarding your general comment that we reduce taxes rather than modifying our trade policies:
The purposes of those taxes are to provide government tax revenues.
Please refer me to the discussion thread where you explain which expenditures we no longer need to fund or did you intend we reduce tax revenues and increase federal borrowing?

I don’t doubt that you have a list of expenditures in mind but many of us others also have a list. Our lists do not correlate with your list. I’m more inclined to believe that our government is not spending too much but rather we are not receiving the best values for our amounts of spending.

Respectfully, Supposn

the corporate tax shipped 10 million jobs off shore and is totally stupid anyway since it is passed on to consumers. We have only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Its not about corp tax , its about wages.

if you raise the corporate tax to highest in world our best corporations move out to stay competitive and their workers must find new lower wage jobs

Most pay about 12% if that. Then we also subsidize them with our state and Fed taxes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars. The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade since our goods are not competitive and our financial assets get more costly in dollars until trade eventually slows and stops. So what happens along the way is:
1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers.

The only solution for Americans is to eliminate taxes and most regulations to become competitive again.

EdwardBaiamonte, both the quality and price of products are affected by the time and quality of labor that was devoted to the products. (Note; differing quality of labor command differing wage rates).

The price advantages of imports from lower-wage nations exist even among their mass-produced products; labor’s required to create and maintain the mass production tools, assembly lines and infrastructures to support the production of goods].

USA’s labor or management are not at fault because they’re unable to compete with foreign nation’s lower wages’ purchasing powers. We should not fault USA purchasers because they seek the optimum value for the money they spend.
We must all function within our environment. USA’s trade policies encourage our annual trade deficits. Change the policies and we change purchasing decisions.

Your equating our inability to produce cheaply as being an inability to produce quality is nonsense.

Regarding your general comment that we reduce taxes rather than modifying our trade policies:
The purposes of those taxes are to provide government tax revenues.
Please refer me to the discussion thread where you explain which expenditures we no longer need to fund or did you intend we reduce tax revenues and increase federal borrowing?

I don’t doubt that you have a list of expenditures in mind but many of us others also have a list. Our lists do not correlate with your list. I’m more inclined to believe that our government is not spending too much but rather we are not receiving the best values for our amounts of spending.

Respectfully, Supposn

the corporate tax shipped 10 million jobs off shore and is totally stupid anyway since it is passed on to consumers. We have only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Its not about corp tax , its about wages.

if you raise the corporate tax to highest in world our best corporations move out to stay competitive and their workers must find new lower wage jobs

Most pay about 12% if that. Then we also subsidize them with our state and Fed taxes.

Yes our policy is to make them pay 40% tax (Federal and State) unless they move out in whole or in part and take their jobs with them. Pretty stupid and liberal -right?

Also really really stupid since tax is passed on or paid by us as consumers like any expense in the form of higher prices. We have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars. The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade since our goods are not competitive and our financial assets get more costly in dollars until trade eventually slows and stops. So what happens along the way is:
1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers.

The only solution for Americans is to eliminate taxes and most regulations to become competitive again.

EdwardBaiamonte, both the quality and price of products are affected by the time and quality of labor that was devoted to the products. (Note; differing quality of labor command differing wage rates).

The price advantages of imports from lower-wage nations exist even among their mass-produced products; labor’s required to create and maintain the mass production tools, assembly lines and infrastructures to support the production of goods].

USA’s labor or management are not at fault because they’re unable to compete with foreign nation’s lower wages’ purchasing powers. We should not fault USA purchasers because they seek the optimum value for the money they spend.
We must all function within our environment. USA’s trade policies encourage our annual trade deficits. Change the policies and we change purchasing decisions.

Your equating our inability to produce cheaply as being an inability to produce quality is nonsense.

Regarding your general comment that we reduce taxes rather than modifying our trade policies:
The purposes of those taxes are to provide government tax revenues.
Please refer me to the discussion thread where you explain which expenditures we no longer need to fund or did you intend we reduce tax revenues and increase federal borrowing?

I don’t doubt that you have a list of expenditures in mind but many of us others also have a list. Our lists do not correlate with your list. I’m more inclined to believe that our government is not spending too much but rather we are not receiving the best values for our amounts of spending.

Respectfully, Supposn

the corporate tax shipped 10 million jobs off shore and is totally stupid anyway since it is passed on to consumers. We have only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Its not about corp tax , its about wages.

if you raise the corporate tax to highest in world our best corporations move out to stay competitive and their workers must find new lower wage jobs

Most pay about 12% if that. Then we also subsidize them with our state and Fed taxes.

Most pay about 12% if that.

You're mistaken, but please explain further.
I'll be happy to point out your errors.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Laissez-fair trade policies, right wingers!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I like to special plead with special Ed. on this; Corporate America may need to get, "the memo" on this.

Better products at lower cost, always tend to increase market share.

 

[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.

I like to special plead with special Ed. on this; Corporate America may need to get, "the memo" on this.

Better products at lower cost, always tend to increase market share.

Absolutely true. We do well on the better products part but not so good on the lower cost part. Which is why lower business taxes and less regulations could be a big deal, if Trump can do that he's well on his way to improving the business climate in this country and that means more growth and more jobs and higher wages.

 

[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.

Laissez-fair trade policies, right wingers!

To a point, yes. If another country is screwing us with the exchange rate then we've gotta address that. Or some other action that is unfair according to international trade rules.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I like to special plead with special Ed. on this; Corporate America may need to get, "the memo" on this.

Better products at lower cost, always tend to increase market share.

Absolutely true. We do well on the better products part but not so good on the lower cost part. Which is why lower business taxes and less regulations could be a big deal, if Trump can do that he's well on his way to improving the business climate in this country and that means more growth and more jobs and higher wages.

The general welfare and the general warfare, are mutually incompatible.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Laissez-fair trade policies, right wingers!

To a point, yes. If another country is screwing us with the exchange rate then we've gotta address that. Or some other action that is unfair according to international trade rules.

managed trade instead of better products at lower cost?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If another country is screwing us with the exchange rate.

how can they screw us?? we don't like the exchange rate or price we don't have to buy from them!!!! Do you understand?