USA goods could be competitively priced

[Econ4Every1]

Tell me, how would the US compete to sell products to the rest of the world in competition with China and India?

we are competing this very second and doing quite well despite anti business libcommies dragging us down.

Again, you need to go back and read the OP and try to keep up with the conversation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He claimed that trade deficits are harmful.

trade deficits are impossible in a free market. China takes our dollars based on what they can buy in America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) It's funny how U3 measurement of employment is embraced when it's convenient.
The unemployment rate says nothing about the quality of those jobs.
.

the U6 number looks just fine too. Sorry!

 

[Econ4Every1]

He claimed that trade deficits are harmful.

trade deficits are impossible in a free market. China takes our dollars based on what they can buy in America.

The Chinese government saves US dollars, $4.5 trillion of them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tell me, how would the US compete to sell products to the rest of the world in competition with China and India?

we are competing this very second and doing quite well despite anti business libcommies dragging us down.

Again, you need to go back and read the OP and try to keep up with the conversation.

supposing is a total illiterate and has been saying govt violence can fix deficit for years. He is main spammer on net on this subject.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Chinese government saves US dollars, $4.5 trillion of them.

so? they must think they will be very valuable in the future!!

 

[Econ4Every1]

1) It's funny how U3 measurement of employment is embraced when it's convenient.
The unemployment rate says nothing about the quality of those jobs.
.

the U6 number looks just fine too. Sorry!

Ok, you win. Everything is fine, go back to sleep James, oops, Edward.

 

[Econ4Every1]

The Chinese government saves US dollars, $4.5 trillion of them.

so? they must think they will be very valuable in the future!!

I can't help you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) It's funny how U3 measurement of employment is embraced when it's convenient.
The unemployment rate says nothing about the quality of those jobs.
.

the U6 number looks just fine too. Sorry!

Ok, you win. Everything is fine, go back to sleep James, oops, Edward.

didn't say everything is fine rather that liberal interference is making things much harder than they should be. Ever hear of East/ West Germany?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I can't help you.[/QUOTE]

ever see a conservative afraid to debate?

 

[Supposn]

but annual trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's economy.

How so?

Econ4Every1, exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is a positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of their nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic production (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP.

Trade deficits' drag upon their nation's GDP particular drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

... As far as unemployment is concerned (effect on GDP), that's purely a political choice We can create and spend dollars equal to the number of dollars net saved outside the US (measured by Treasury holdings) with very little if any inflation if spent slowly enough (it took foreign nations many years to stockpile trillions of US dollars) and on the kinds of things that put the bottom 50% of Americans to work.

Econ4Every1, commercial enterprises' only pertinent advantages are competitive advantages. Commercial enterprises suffer competitive disadvantages if they fail to purchase cheaper foreign products; purchasing such goods does not provide them advantages over their domestic or foreign competitors that do the same thing.

A nations net annual trade deficit of goods reduces its gross domestic product, (GDP) and its particularly detrimental to its numbers of jobs. Thus, USA's chronic annual trade deficits are particularly detrimental to our aggregate families dependent upon wages.

Balance of trade contributes or reduces calculations of nations' GDPs. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.
What should be the motivation of a nation's economic policy if not to support their populations' quality of lives? USA's numbers of jobs and purchasing power of our median wage, rather than the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar are superior indications of how well or poorly we live.

That's why I'm among the proponents of USA adopting the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's why I'm among the proponents of USA adopting the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn

import certificates are merely another liberal tax or tariff on imports to impoverish Americans who buy imports and to further weaken American companies by protecting them from international competition.

 

[Econ4Every1]

but annual trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's economy.

How so?

Econ4Every1, exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is a positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of their nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic production (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP.

Trade deficits' drag upon their nation's GDP particular drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

... As far as unemployment is concerned (effect on GDP), that's purely a political choice We can create and spend dollars equal to the number of dollars net saved outside the US (measured by Treasury holdings) with very little if any inflation if spent slowly enough (it took foreign nations many years to stockpile trillions of US dollars) and on the kinds of things that put the bottom 50% of Americans to work.

Econ4Every1, commercial enterprises' only pertinent advantages are competitive advantages. Commercial enterprises suffer competitive disadvantages if they fail to purchase cheaper foreign products; purchasing such goods does not provide them advantages over their domestic or foreign competitors that do the same thing.

A nations net annual trade deficit of goods reduces its gross domestic product, (GDP) and its particularly detrimental to its numbers of jobs. Thus, USA's chronic annual trade deficits are particularly detrimental to our aggregate families dependent upon wages.

Balance of trade contributes or reduces calculations of nations' GDPs. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.
What should be the motivation of a nation's economic policy if not to support their populations' quality of lives? USA's numbers of jobs and purchasing power of our median wage, rather than the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar are superior indications of how well or poorly we live.

That's why I'm among the proponents of USA adopting the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn

I read the article on Wikipedia, though I admit I only understand it at face value. I have a few questions perhaps you could answer based on your understanding of IC's.

First, even if a plan like that worked wouldn't that put downward pressure on wages here in the US? Or encourage massive automation or hiring of illegal/ legal immigrants who are willing to come to the US and work for less? I mean, how can you compete against this:

The iEconomy: How Much Do Foxconn Workers Make?

The average worker at Foxconn (a company with a million workers that supply something in almost every electronic device you own) pays line workers an average of $400 a month. Counting for purchasing power parity that's about $7hr, which, on its face sounds ok until you realize the conditions they have to endure to make the equivalent of $7.

The nets encourage would-be jumpers to find another way to kill themselves.

Now I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but it's worth noting that these conditions exist in a factory that supplies most of its goods to the US and US suppliers demand better conditions from these places by insisting occasional audits.

So I'm asking you, how do we compete with this?

Automation?
Immigration?

Next question:

If we reduce the number of US dollars flowing out of the US and we fail to achieve export targets, we'll simultaneously decrease the demand for US treasuries abroad (as lower imports mean there are fewer US dollars in the world markets) which could in turn mean that the US government is incapable of rolling over its debt. The only way to pay for the debt at that point would be to run a national surplus (taxes exceed revenues).

Next question:

How do you think this would affect employment?

As far as the effect on GDP, why can't the government increase the yearly deficit by $300 billion per year and spend that money fixing infrastructure? Paying for healthcare and helping people go to college and graduate without $100k in debt? Wouldn't that increase GDP?

Every extra dollar the government creates contributes about $1.40 to GDP.

We export dollars that end up as savings and not spent, why can't we just recreate those dollars and spend them to increase GDP? We get the benefit of low price imports and higher living conditions.

Where am I going wrong here? Again, I admit there may be more I'm not considering here, but I just think that IC's, at least at this point just invite unforeseeable and unintended consequences of the kinds of market distortions that IC's would cause.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The nets encourage would-be jumpers to find another way to kill themselves.

suicide rate there is lower than in USA. People take jobs at Foxconn China freely because they are better than what they had before when 60 million slowly starved to death.

 

[Supposn]

I read the article on Wikipedia, though I admit I only understand it at face value. I have a few questions perhaps you could answer based on your understanding of IC's.

First, even if a plan like that worked wouldn't that put downward pressure on wages here in the US? ...

Econ4Every1, what do you mean when you refer to understanding “at face value”?
. USA's adoption of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” would increase USA's GDP and numbers of jobs. How did you reach the conclusion that consequentially could “put downward pressure on wages here in the US”?
.
The policy would increase the value of USA's GDP unless USA consumers determine to do with fewer goods and services. USA's GDP would increase more than otherwise without regard for foreign reaction to our adopted trade policy.
.
If USA exports are reduced, Import certificates, (IC's) would be scarcer. They're only issued to exporters of USA goods that CHOOSE to pay the fees which defray federal expenses due to this policy.
.
If global traders cannot acquire ICs in global internet marketplaces, they cannot bring foreign goods into the USA's domestic markets. USA consumers' demands for imported goods will increase the global market price of ICs which are not reusable. To the extent that the ICs' global open market price is greater than the fees paid by USA goods exporters, they are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA export prices.
.
If insufficient goods are imported into the USA, USA consumers will purchase more USA goods and service products and that consequentially increases our GDP. If sufficient goods are imported into the USA, our exports would have had to increase and that increases USA's GDP.
.
This policy is not meant and is not likely to ever reduce USA's aggregate global trade, but it is more likely to increase the sum of our imports and exports more than otherwise and it doesn't enable the USA to experience annual trade deficits of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I read the article on Wikipedia, though I admit I only understand it at face value. I have a few questions perhaps you could answer based on your understanding of IC's.

First, even if a plan like that worked wouldn't that put downward pressure on wages here in the US? ...

Econ4Every1, what do you mean when you refer to understanding “at face value”?
. USA's adoption of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” would increase USA's GDP and numbers of jobs. How did you reach the conclusion that consequentially could “put downward pressure on wages here in the US”?
.
The policy would increase the value of USA's GDP unless USA consumers determine to do with fewer goods and services. USA's GDP would increase more than otherwise without regard for foreign reaction to our adopted trade policy.
.
If USA exports are reduced, Import certificates, (IC's) would be scarcer. They're only issued to exporters of USA goods that CHOOSE to pay the fees which defray federal expenses due to this policy.
.
If global traders cannot acquire ICs in global internet marketplaces, they cannot bring foreign goods into the USA's domestic markets. USA consumers' demands for imported goods will increase the global market price of ICs which are not reusable. To the extent that the ICs' global open market price is greater than the fees paid by USA goods exporters, they are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA export prices.
.
If insufficient goods are imported into the USA, USA consumers will purchase more USA goods and service products and that consequentially increases our GDP. If sufficient goods are imported into the USA, our exports would have had to increase and that increases USA's GDP.
.
This policy is not meant and is not likely to ever reduce USA's aggregate global trade, but it is more likely to increase the sum of our imports and exports more than otherwise and it doesn't enable the USA to experience annual trade deficits of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

adoption of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” would increase USA's GDP and numbers of jobs.

If you increase GDP and jobs but reduce our standard of living, is that a good thing?

 

[Supposn]

I read the article on Wikipedia, though I admit I only understand it at face value. I have a few questions perhaps you could answer based on your understanding of ICs. ... First, even if a plan like that worked wouldn't that put downward pressure on wages here in the US? Or encourage massive automation or hiring of illegal/ legal immigrants who are willing to come to the US and work for less? ...

Econ4Every1, If not to improve and retain the quality of their citizens' live, what should be the the primary goal of a governments' economic policies? The nation's GDP indicates the size of the nation's “pie” to be distributed. The purchasing power of the nation's median wage indicates the extent of that distribution.

Are you contending that the quality of USA citizens lives would be improved if the purchasing power of our median wage were reduced; we should seek to reduce our GDP and/or our median wage? Are you suggesting reducing our median wage's purchasing power as a means of reducing the volume of illegals entering the USA?

USA's adoption of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
Automation reduces per unit costs and/or improves quality and/or consistency of those products’ quality. It has not and will not be to USA’s net economic detriment.
Automation tools, assembly lines, and methods require labor to design, create, maintain, and repair them even if they may not require many people to operate them.

Automated production, no less than the production of any other services or goods products, requires production supporting labor and enterprises.Automation has always been, and I expect it will continue to be in our nation's best interest. To the extent that labor's cost is less, automation introduction is delayed. This is typical of our world's poorest economies.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Econ4Every1]

Econ4Every1, what do you mean when you refer to understanding “at face value”?

What I mean is that I read it, but I know issues like these are complicated. I come out of my reading of it with some ideas about the consequences, but I try to stay open-minded in case I'm made aware of new information, or it is explained to me why my interpretation is wrong.

You believe that IC's are a good thing. If memory serves you've believed this for a while, thus I'm asking you to convince me that I'm wrong.

USA's adoption of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” would increase USA's GDP and numbers of jobs.

How?

My take is that there is a presumption in your claim that I don't believe is true. So let me ask you, why do you believe it will create more jobs?

Econ4Every1, If not to improve and retain the quality of their citizens' live, what should be the primary goal of a governments' economic policies? The nation's GDP indicates the size of the nation's “pie” to be distributed. The purchasing power of the nation's median wage indicates the extent of that distribution.

I could write several pages on what I think the goal of governments policies should be, but I don't think we disagree on what we believe that government should do, the question is, what is the mechanism for achieving it?

You appear to believe that IC's are part of that, I'm not (so far) convinced.

Are you contending that the quality of USA citizens lives would be improved if the purchasing power of our median wage were reduced; we should seek to reduce our GDP and/or our median wage?

Clearly, there was some miscommunication here. I think median wage is a crude measurement, but I think in principle we agree. When I say crude, I think it's possible that the median wage could stay the same, but economic distribution improves, but that's another can of worms.

USA's adoption of the trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Again, explain the mechanism. What presumptions are you making?

Automation reduces per unit costs and/or improves quality and/or consistency of those products’ quality.

Understand, I'm not against automation, I agree with you again in principle, but in practice, I think automation could be used to increase the advantage of the wealthy and create a pool of desperate people that lack the skills to compete with the automation that replaced them. I think for that group of people, a very large and significant portion of the US population, their lives would get worse.

It has not and will not be to USA’s net economic detriment.

Convince me that's true.

Automation tools, assembly lines, and methods require labor to design, create, maintain, and repair them even if they may not require many people to operate them.

The presumption here is that machines can't do most of those jobs in the near future. I suspect within a generation we'll have AI smart enough to improve its own design. It's already happening.

What about repair? I work in the enterprise world of IT for some of the largest corporations in the US. I manage data storage. 10 years ago I would spend a year with 10 to 15 people designing, purchasing, deploying, and configuring storage for a medium to large project. I can now do that all by myself in 2 months. The day to day tasks of managing storage is now handled by "AI", essentially machine intelligence. The machine decides how best to optimize performance.

In 1997 I worked for EMC Corp (now part of Dell). We had 15 engineers on site to manage AOL's infrastructure of approximately 30 or so storage arrays. I don't remember how much data, but I'd be willing to bet all of AOL's data back in 1997 would fit in less than a single storage array today at a fraction of the cost. Now managing infrastructure
that size can be done part-time by a single person.

Not to belabor the point, but today I'm one of about 10 engineers that manage 180 storage arrays, over 200pb of data. But all those extra arrays didn't create lots more jobs. Why? Because everything is componentized. If something breaks, they don't send people into the field for the most common sources of failure. Now you can simply flip a release or turn a screw, pull out the failed part with the amber light on it. Put it in a box and slide the new part back in (something the customer can do).

The part goes back to a single company where 30 or so people fix or scrap the broken components. It used to take thousands of feild people to do that, now it can be done by about 30 people.

Ok, so what does this mean. It means that it takes fewer people to manage greater and greater amounts of IT infrastructure. That means that as time goes on there are more people to do less work while at the same time the amount of productivity has increased by orders of magnitude.

All the jobs that you think increased automation will create most of them, especially the medium to low skilled jobs will be done by AI. AI will manage, design, deploy maintain and repair and then after it's in place 3-5 people to maintain (depending on the size of the IT environment). I'm not saying that humans will ever be totally out of the picture. In other words, the ratio of AI to people neede to maintain that AI will go down as population increases and AI improves because AI will not only be able to do the job of manufacturing (for instance), AI will also be able to maintain, repair, design etc.....Jobs that you think people will fill. I'm telling you, from experience, that's not how it's going to work.

Now again, I assert that this is fine if the right expectations and policies are in place. If you think AI is going to create more jobs than it takes away, I'm telling you, you're wrong (unless we understand the impacts and understand how to utilize our money system.

We'll need the greater distribution of profits to the workers so they can purchase the output of all this increased automation and efficiency. The mood of the country right now seems to be to increase costs on healthcare, college tuition and the loans to pay for them. Decrease the social safety nets all things that will make it more difficult for Americans to purchase what automation creates.

Automated production, no less than the production of any other services or goods products, requires production supporting labor and enterprises.Automation has always been, and I expect it will continue to be in our nation's best interest. To the extent that labor's cost is less, automation introduction is delayed. This is typical of our world's poorest economies.
.
Respectfully, Supposn

I don't disagree that automation can be a boon, but if our workers don't share in the fruits of the profits created by automation then it can increase inequality.

Does that make sense?

 

[Supposn]

I read the article on Wikipedia, though I admit I only understand it at face value. I have a few questions perhaps you could answer based on your understanding of IC's.

First, even if a plan like that worked wouldn't that put downward pressure on wages here in the US? Or encourage massive automation or hiring of illegal/ legal immigrants who are willing to come to the US and work for less? I mean, how can you compete against this:
The iEconomy: How Much Do Foxconn Workers Make? ...

Econ4Every1, USA's current global trade policy is not as described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”. Under our current policy, purchasers of goods seeking the best values for their money, often correctly choose to purchase foreign goods; USA consequentially experiences chronic annual trade deficits of goods and therefore our GDP and numbers of jobs are less than otherwise.

If USA adopted that Import Certificate, (i.e. IC) policy, USA purchasers of goods will continue to seek the best values for their money, but (due to the changes of our laws), their choices would also be in the best interest of USA's economy.

Although IC policy is substantially more market and less government driven, unlike pure free trade, it doesn't tolerate its nation experiencing annual trade deficits of goods.

Within a nation's IC policy, markets continue to determine what goods are shipped where and when at what prices, but the volumes of foreign production (of enterprises such as your reference to Foxconn), is limited to the amounts of Import Certificates that their importers can surrender to enable the goods entry into the USA. Foxconn will have to compete with all other enterprises importing goods ito the USA, for the number of Import Certificates that are in circulation. The IC policy cannot prevent any foreign item from being imported into the USA but the importers will have to acquire Import Certificates to bring those items into the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Econ4Every1]

I read the article on Wikipedia, though I admit I only understand it at face value. I have a few questions perhaps you could answer based on your understanding of IC's.

First, even if a plan like that worked wouldn't that put downward pressure on wages here in the US? Or encourage massive automation or hiring of illegal/ legal immigrants who are willing to come to the US and work for less? I mean, how can you compete against this:
The iEconomy: How Much Do Foxconn Workers Make? ...

Econ4Every1, USA's current global trade policy is not as described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”. Under our current policy, purchasers of goods seeking the best values for their money, often correctly choose to purchase foreign goods; USA consequentially experiences chronic annual trade deficits of goods and therefore our GDP and numbers of jobs are less than otherwise.

If USA adopted that Import Certificate, (i.e. IC) policy, USA purchasers of goods will continue to seek the best values for their money, but (due to the changes of our laws), their choices would also be in the best interest of USA's economy.

Although IC policy is substantially more market and less government driven, unlike pure free trade, it doesn't tolerate its nation experiencing annual trade deficits of goods.

Within a nation's IC policy, markets continue to determine what goods are shipped where and when at what prices, but the volumes of foreign production (of enterprises such as your reference to Foxconn), is limited to the amounts of Import Certificates that their importers can surrender to enable the goods entry into the USA. Foxconn will have to compete with all other enterprises importing goods ito the USA, for the number of Import Certificates that are in circulation. The IC policy cannot prevent any foreign item from being imported into the USA but the importers will have to acquire Import Certificates to bring those items into the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

You really didn't answer all of my questions.

Would IC's (in theory) reduce foreign imports into the US?

If so, Why? What is the benefit?