Trade Deficit

[EdwardBaiamonte]

trade deficit nations' productions are reduced due to their annual net balances of trade.

Individuals, cities, states, regions, countries have trade deficits all the time. Do you want Nazi govts everywhere to be constantly imposing taxes so there are no deficits anywhere? Its absurd but perfectly liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The US has been screwing countries over for a long, long time.

you mean like we screwed over Europe and Japan after WW1 and WW2, like we screwed over Russia and China by freeing them from Communism?

 

[Supposn]

Excerpted from:

... State delegates to what became the USA’s constitutional convention of 1787 understood that some states had commercial advantages over other states. (At that time, people and their state's delegates' allegiances were more for their states and less for a national government. Despite that, they were able to negotiate a constitutional agreement for absolutely supreme federal jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce. They negotiated for the advantaged states to relinquish their advantages for the good of the nation.
Those advantaged states that agreed to accept the new federal government, did grudgingly accept an reduction of their individual then current economies.
My primary allegiance is to the USA. Unlike those constitutional delegates, [that wished to retain the right to levy tariffs at their states' borders], I'm currently opposed to accepting lesser economy for my nation. I'm opposed to sacrificing the finances of USA's wage-earning families on behalf of the global economy.

I'm a proponent of federal government's promoting the general welfare as stated within the preamble of the U.S. Constitution). That's why I'm a proponent of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. Additionally, I'm a proponent of internet neutrality, federal promotion of public infrastructures, communication, and transportation systems. ...

Individuals, cities, states, regions, countries have trade deficits all the time. Do you want Nazi govts everywhere to be constantly imposing taxes so there are no deficits anywhere? Its absurd but perfectly liberal.

EdwardBaiamonte, I don't suppose that you advocate sacrificing the finances of USA's wage-earning families on behalf of the global economy. I suppose you, as all of us participating and reading this thread, are aware of the compromises that occurred during that first U.S. Constitutional convention. Federal supreme jurisdiction of interstate commerce grants net economic benefits to our entire nation. Thus, it denies advantages of some U.S. states over other states.​

But your nasty little post presupposes that all other members of this forum are ignorant and less aware than you.
Supposn

 

[Toro]

It is obvious that something must be done about the exponentially growing budget deficit. More importantly, the trade deficit, which is a huge problem, and is mostly a result of billions of dollars owed to foreign countries. America and the government must do something in order to set imports and exports at equilibrium. Currently, our imports far exceed our exports due to the fact that these foreign power nations are making many products found in America, but at a much cheaper price. In order to reduce trade deficit we must compete with these nations. We can not allow foreign countries to steal some of our GDP. The American producers must fight to compete with foreign prices and the American people most make a stand on domestic consumption.

Let me hear your thoughts on this topic?

My thought is that you’ve never taken a class in economics, and are totally ignorant of the subject.

 

[Supposn]

It is obvious that something must be done about the exponentially growing budget deficit. More importantly, the trade deficit, which is a huge problem, and is mostly a result of billions of dollars owed to foreign countries. America and the government must do something in order to set imports and exports at equilibrium. Currently, our imports far exceed our exports due to the fact that these foreign power nations are making many products found in America, but at a much cheaper price. In order to reduce trade deficit we must compete with these nations. We can not allow foreign countries to steal some of our GDP. The American producers must fight to compete with foreign prices and the American people most make a stand on domestic consumption.

Let me hear your thoughts on this topic?

My thought's that you’ve never taken a class in economics, and are totally ignorant of the subject.

Shoooot9, Import Certificate policy does not prevent importing of goods, but it does not tolerate their nation suffering an annual trade deficit of goods. It cannot prevent an item from being imported if there's an effective USA demand for that item. It favors USA products. It does not discriminate among industries, enterprises, types of goods, or among foreign nations. It would increase USA's GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

My thought' is Toro's economic textbooks may likely not have caught up with the concept of Import Certificates.
The author's of Toro's textbooks may not have been aware of the concept and/or the Toro's textbook may have been written prior to the publishing of the concept.
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Respectfully. Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...due to USA's annual trade deficits, the net extents of domestic production we failed to achieve...

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but what I'm getting is trade deficits are always a failure of some domestic production. If that's what not what you're saying then please clarify.

If it is then lets consider the $billions of trade deficit that the U.S. has w/ say, Nigeria. That trade deficit is caused by importing cocoa beans for U.S. chocolate factories like Hersheys and Mars. There's no domestic production failure as cocoa beans don't grow in the U.S.

This line of thinking is easy to ignore at maybe a union hall or a political rally, but when it comes to earning a living it's time to sober up and look at how hard numbers for GDP soar when the trade deficit grows.

Expat_Panama, yes, you certainly are not “getting it”.

if you'll explain how from my posts, you derived their meaning to be “trade deficits are always a failure of some domestic production”, I might better understand many of the other less than logical conclusions expressed within your posts.

I did state that annual net trade deficits are always detrimental to their nation’s volume of domestic production. I did not state that importers or importing is detrimental to USA’s GDP, our domestic production and our numbers of jobs.

I stated USA’s chronic annual trade deficits indicate we're purchasing more products than we’re producing. If you derive that to mean that Hersey is purchasing more products than they’re producing, you would again be incorrect.

Respectfully, Supposn

I did not state that importers or importing is detrimental to USA’s GDP, our domestic production and our numbers of jobs.

When did you change your tune?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Federal supreme jurisdiction of interstate commerce grants net economic benefits to our entire nation. Thus, it denies advantages of some U.S. states over other states.

But your nasty little post presupposes that all other members of this forum are ignorant and less aware than you.
Supposn

1) Constitution lets Feds regulate commerce
2) they could regulated it by letting every state have a tariff against any other state(s) within the USA
3) you should love this since trade wars are you want between nations; why not between states too?

 

[Supposn]

... I did state that annual net trade deficits are always detrimental to their nation’s volume of domestic production. I did not state that importers or importing is detrimental to USA’s GDP, our domestic production and our numbers of jobs.

I stated USA’s chronic annual trade deficits indicate we're purchasing more products than we’re producing. ...

I did not state that importers or importing is detrimental to USA’s GDP, our domestic production and our numbers of jobs.

When did you change your tune?

ToddsterPatriot, you read, but don't comprehend what was written? You cannot understand the posts that you quoted? Possibly you were in a hurry and sped read?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

1) Constitution lets Feds regulate commerce
2) they could regulated it by letting every state have a tariff against any other state(s) within the USA
3) you should love this since trade wars are you want between nations; why not between states too?

EdwardBaiamonte, regarding your first point: we're all relieved that you're not opposed to the U.S. Constitution. We're pleased that you agree the federal government has supreme jurisdiction upon USA's international and interstate commerce.

Regarding your second point: Refer to article 1, section 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress”.

Regarding your third point: There has always been, there now exists, and I expect that for a very long time of our future there will continue to be commercial competition between cities and states, provinces, and nations of our world.
If the USA adopted an Import Certificate policy, it wouldn't much increase or decrease our commercial disagreements with other nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

1) Constitution lets Feds regulate commerce
2) they could regulated it by letting every state have a tariff against any other state(s) within the USA
3) you should love this since trade wars are you want between nations; why not between states too?

EdwardBaiamonte, regarding your first point: we're all relieved that you're not opposed to the U.S. Constitution. We're pleased that you agree the federal government has supreme jurisdiction upon USA's international and interstate commerce.

Regarding your second point: Refer to article 1, section 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress”.

Regarding your third point: There has always been, there now exists, and I expect that for a very long time of our future there will continue to be commercial competition between cities and states, provinces, and nations of our world.
If the USA adopted an Import Certificate policy, it wouldn't much increase or decrease our commercial disagreements with other nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... I did state that annual net trade deficits are always detrimental to their nation’s volume of domestic production. I did not state that importers or importing is detrimental to USA’s GDP, our domestic production and our numbers of jobs.

I stated USA’s chronic annual trade deficits indicate we're purchasing more products than we’re producing. ...

I did not state that importers or importing is detrimental to USA’s GDP, our domestic production and our numbers of jobs.

When did you change your tune?

ToddsterPatriot, you read, but don't comprehend what was written? You cannot understand the posts that you quoted? Possibly you were in a hurry and sped read?

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, you read,

I do.

but don't comprehend what was written?

I could have sworn your previous whining about the trade deficit was due to the fact that you claimed it harmed domestic production, but now it sounds like you're just whining about the formula.

Feel free to clarify.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, you read, but don't comprehend what was written? You cannot understand the posts that you quoted? Possibly you were in a hurry and sped read? ...

... I could have sworn your previous whining about the trade deficit was due to the fact that you claimed it harmed domestic production, but now it sounds like you're just whining about the formula.
Feel free to clarify.

ToddsterPatriot, to clarify, annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations GDP, drag upon their numbers of jobs and payroll amounts.

The expenditure formula's calculation of a nation's GDP is explicit. The nation's final sales of products include sales of imported and exported products. Exports contribute and imports reduce their nation's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, you read, but don't comprehend what was written? You cannot understand the posts that you quoted? Possibly you were in a hurry and sped read? ...

... I could have sworn your previous whining about the trade deficit was due to the fact that you claimed it harmed domestic production, but now it sounds like you're just whining about the formula.
Feel free to clarify.

ToddsterPatriot, to clarify, annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations GDP, drag upon their numbers of jobs and payroll amounts.

The expenditure formula's calculation of a nation's GDP is explicit. The nation's final sales of products include sales of imported and exported products. Exports contribute and imports reduce their nation's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

EdwardBaiamonte, regarding your first point: we're all relieved that you're not opposed to the U.S. Constitution. We're pleased that you agree the federal government has supreme jurisdiction upon USA's international and interstate commerce.

issue is not about Feds having commerce jurisdiction but whether that jurisdiction should be used to promote free trade or tariff tax wars. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Regarding your second point: Refer to article 1, section 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress”.

OMG! Issue was not what Constitution said in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 so why reprint it unless you are really really slow? Issue was whether Congress should consent to the inter state trade tariff wars that you love so much.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Regarding your third point: There has always been, there now exists, and I expect that for a very long time of our future there will continue to be commercial competition between cities and states, provinces, and nations of our world.

the issue is whether you support intercity and interstate trade tariff wars like you support international trade tariff wars.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the USA adopted an Import Certificate policy, it wouldn't much increase or decrease our commercial disagreements with other nations.

that would depend on whether your beloved tariff tax wars escalated or whether all parties realized free trade between individuals cities states regions and nations was best for all. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Exports contribute and imports reduce their nation's GDP.

imagine how much faster the world's GDP would have developed if only we had realized sooner the importance of stopping imports and expanding exports!! You will get a Nobel Prize for that!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, you read, but don't comprehend what was written? You cannot understand the posts that you quoted? Possibly you were in a hurry and sped read? ...

... I could have sworn your previous whining about the trade deficit was due to the fact that you claimed it harmed domestic production, but now it sounds like you're just whining about the formula.
Feel free to clarify.

ToddsterPatriot, to clarify, annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations GDP, drag upon their numbers of jobs and payroll amounts.

The expenditure formula's calculation of a nation's GDP is explicit. The nation's final sales of products include sales of imported and exported products. Exports contribute and imports reduce their nation's GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

to clarify, annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations GDP, drag upon their numbers of jobs and payroll amounts.​

I did state that annual net trade deficits are always detrimental to their nation’s volume of domestic production. I did not state that importers or importing is detrimental to USA’s GDP, our domestic production and our numbers of jobs.

Trade Deficit

You're flopping back and forth in this thread.

Why did you say importing is not detrimental to GDP or domestic production?

 

[task0778]

annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations GDP, drag upon their numbers of jobs and payroll amounts.

Not always true. All else being equal, if you import a billion dollars worth of raw materials and you use those raw materials to produce 2 billion dollars of some product, then that trade deficit is NOT detrimental. In fact, it would positive to GDP, you would be creating new jobs and greater payrolls.