USA’s chronic trade deficits

[Supposn]

USA’s chronic trade deficits.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.

There are only two presidential candidates that do actually reject and/or effectively avoid giving any credence to the problem of USA’s chronic global annual trade deficits. Nether Mr. Donald Trump or Senator Bernard Sanders offer any explicit proposal to significantly reduce USA’s annual global trade deficits.

I’m a political orphan; there’s no candidate worthy of support.

I’m among the proponents of USA adopting a specific unilateral Import Certificate policy for conducting our global trade of goods. It is a primarily market rather than government driven policy that’s entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
and/or
The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Picaro]

Real global trade has been stagnant and has even declined over the last 4 or 5 decades, despite all the noise over 'globalism' and the fantasies surrounding that hoax. The bulk of it is merely intra-company transfers, a company in a country just shipping itself stuff from an overseas operation; Ford Mexico shipping Ford America factory parts from its factories in Mexico to its factories in the U.S., for instance. The only beneficiaries are of course stockholders and financial speculators. It's just a front for labor racketeering and money laundering.

 

[Supposn]

Real global trade has been stagnant and has even declined over the last 4 or 5 decades, despite all the noise over 'globalism' and the fantasies surrounding that hoax. The bulk of it is merely intra-company transfers, a company in a country just shipping itself stuff from an overseas operation; Ford Mexico shipping Ford America factory parts from its factories in Mexico to its factories in the U.S., for instance. The only beneficiaries are of course stockholders and financial speculators. It's just a front for labor racketeering and money laundering.

Picaro, Ford Mexico shipping Ford America factory parts from its factories in Mexico to its factories in the U.S. contribute to USA’s annual trade deficit of goods and effectively reduce USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and wages more than otherwise; (otherwise being if the USA had not experienced a deficit of our global trade that particular year). You apparently did not read much or didn’t consider the provided references.

When did you last shop for a car or a mechanical or electrical appliance or any electronic products? It’s often difficult to find USA products.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies; the effects of nations’ balances of trade are cumulative and the USA has consistently experienced annual trade deficits of goods in excess of a half-century.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
and/or
The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies;

of course that's an obvious lie. Deficits are neutral although an increasingly uncompetitive economy is probably detrimental and leads to an increasing trade deficit.
Intelligent conservatives and libertarians know to make the economy more competitive to then see the deficit shrink. To merely make deficits illegal is backwards. Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[Supposn]

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies;

of course that's an obvious lie. Deficits are neutral although an increasingly uncompetitive economy is probably detrimental and leads to an increasing trade deficit.
Intelligent conservatives and libertarians know to make the economy more competitive to then see the deficit shrink. To merely make deficits illegal is backwards. Do you have the IQ to understand?

Edward Baiamonte, if your logic leads you to believe that chronic annual trade deficits are harmless to their nations’ economies, then you must similarly conclude that termite infestation is harmless to a wooden barn.

I’d be interested if you could point to some specific point made within the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade”, and refute the point with a compelling logical argument.

I’m among the proponents for USA adopting a unilateral policy for our global trade. Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import certificates”.

It is not pure free trade but it is absolutely pure competitive enterprises.


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if your logic leads you to believe that chronic annual trade deficits are harmless

as I said, deficits are neutral, a lack of competitiveness is harmful. A deficit is a symptom, not a cause. If you want a more competitive economy with a lower deficit then you want more capitalism. The obvious starting point is to eliminate the corporate tax which is a greater burden on our corporations than any other corporations in the world.

 

[Supposn]

if your logic leads you to believe that chronic annual trade deficits are harmless

as I said, deficits are neutral, a lack of competitiveness is harmful. A deficit is a symptom, not a cause. If you want a more competitive economy with a lower deficit then you want more capitalism. The obvious starting point is to eliminate the corporate tax which is a greater burden on our corporations than any other corporations in the world.

Edward Baiamonte, I’m among the proponents of a unilateral trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article, “Import Certificates.


Any increase of foreign goods prices due to the trade policy would be passed onto their USA purchasers.

Decreases of USA exported goods prices would be passed onto foreign purchasers of USA goods. (The proposal acts as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods).

Prices of USA’s globally traded goods would be affected by our federal government but they will be substantially much more market rather than government determined. Prices of USA goods sold to USA purchasers would be entirely unaffected by this trade policy.


If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the policy treats all industries equally.

It does not discriminate between foreign nations; it treats them and all of their enterprises equally.

It does not identify or discriminate among enterprises due to the nationality of enterprises’ owners, directors or shareholders.


The proposal’s ONLY mandate upon any enterprise is upon importers of foreign goods into the USA; they’re shipments are subject to examination for assessment of value and they must surrender transferable Import Certificates with “face values” sufficient to cover those assessed values. (The surrendered certificates are then cancelled).


The proposal would be of benefit to every USA enterprise producing goods that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods anywhere in the world.

Other than an enterprise within the USA that is legally or otherwise bound not to deal with USA goods, the proposal does not hinder or favor any particular USA enterprise.


Certainly the proposal would be to the advantage to USA’s economy; that’s why it’s proposed.

It is not of any competitive advantage between USA enterprises. It does limit, (hopefully significantly limits) the extent of USA goods’ now great disadvantage to goods produced in lower wage nations.

Other than that, what lack of competitiveness do you perceive between or among which entities?

What I perceive is the significant reduction of USA’s chronic annual trade deficits that would be the reflection USA’s increased GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage due to the proposed trade policy.


Respectfully Supposn

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 13908217, member: ...
... If you want a more competitive economy with a lower deficit then you want more capitalism. The obvious starting point is to eliminate the corporate tax which is a greater burden on our corporations than any other corporations in the world.[/QUOTE]


EdwardBaiamonte, there’s no doubt that reducing taxes can improve the nation’s economy but how they are reduced is critical,

I suppose that simply reducing all federal taxes by the same proportional rate would result in net detriment rather than improvement of USA’s social and economic conditions.
There are innumerable proposed tax reform plans. A few of them would be of net improvement to our nation but too many that I’m aware of would (in my opinion) be economically net detrimental.

You propose that reducing USA’s corporate taxes would make us more globally competitive. Reducing any specific federal tax entails to some extent modifying our current practices. Our alternatives would be increasing our other taxes and/or our federal budget deficits and/or our accumulating federal debt and/or re-prioritizing to reduce our net federal spending.

Almost all of us our in favor of reducing taxes and/or spending until we need to agree upon which taxes to reduce and which government services we consider as expendable. I doubt if you and I are in complete agreement upon all of these alternatives.

Those on the far left are opposed to an Import Certificate concept that is substantially market rather than government driven; those on the right are opposed in principle to anything less than pure free trade; but I do perceive a great deal of opportunity to negotiate political agreement for trade policy modification that would be to our nation’s net economic benefit.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, I’m among the proponents of a unilateral trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article, “Import Certificates.

we get it, you're a simple dumb protectionist!! If you protect American business you make it less and less competitive rather than more and more competitive. A child can understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. It does limit, (hopefully significantly limits) the extent of USA goods’ now great disadvantage to goods produced in lower wage nations.

again, a child can understand so why not you? Buying cheaper goods from
China makes us richer than we would be if we had to buy more expensive goods from high wage countries. What don't you understand?

 

[Supposn]

. It does limit, (hopefully significantly limits) the extent of USA goods’ now great disadvantage to goods produced in lower wage nations.

again, a child can understand so why not you? Buying cheaper goods from
China makes us richer than we would be if we had to buy more expensive goods from high wage countries. What don't you understand?

EdwardBaiamonte, is anyone other than yourself considering USA should “buy more expensive goods from high wage countries”? Are you often so delusional?


We all benefit from purchasing cheaper goods but those benefits realized by USA employees and their dependents do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits’ detrimental effects upon their incomes. The down side of USA’s annual trade deficits are GDPs, numbers of jobs and their median wage all being, (due to our trade deficits), less than otherwise.


USA’s economy is greatly affected by the financial conditions of our middle-income earners. Almost our entire segment of lower income earners’ and the overwhelming majority of our middle-income earners’ segment of USA’s population are employees are almost completely dependent upon their USA wages and salaries. They and all of their dependents are almost entirely dependent upon those same USA wages and salaries and they are by far the majority of USA’s population.


The benefits of cheaper imports do not compensate employees and their dependents for our chronic annual trade deficits detrimental net effects upon employment derived incomes. Despite the benefits of cheaper imported products, annual trade deficits are net detrimental to their nations’ economies.

What don't you understand?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What don't you understand?

why you oppose free trade when we have more and more of it because its the one thing economists on both sides can agree upon!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

those benefits realized by USA employees and their dependents do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits’ detrimental effects upon their incomes.

would the silly liberal seek to end free trade between American states and American individuals too since some have comparative advantages??

 

[Supposn]

What don't you understand?

why you oppose free trade when we have more and more of it because its the one thing economists on both sides can agree upon!!

EdwardBaiamonte, which economists on both sides of what concur upon the net benefits of “pure” free trade?

The validity of any concept or fact is not determined by statistical weight of opinion polls or by the reputation of those arguing on one side or another.

But even if that were not true, (i.e. even if validity can be certainly determined by polling economists), there’s no clear acceptance of your contention that annual trade deficits are to their nation’s net economic benefit or they are not detrimental to their nation’s economy.

I’m opposed to “pure” free trade. I m not opposed to USA fully participating in global trade I am opposed to gladly tolerating our chronic annual trade deficits of goods that reduce our GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage more than otherwise.

It’s to be expected that the Import Certificate policy I’m refer to would increase USA’s volumes of global trade. Your objection is that the increased trade volumes would run in both directions?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

those benefits realized by USA employees and their dependents do not compensate for our chronic annual trade deficits’ detrimental effects upon their incomes.

would the silly liberal seek to end free trade between American states and American individuals too since some have comparative advantages??

Edward Baiamonte, the founding 13 member governments’ delegates that signed the “Articles of Confederation” then retained a great deal sovereignty for their governments. Later a convention for the revision of what was perceived as that agreement’s weaknesses consequentially drafted an entirely new constitution for the United States of America.

[Since people began governing themselves, the concepts of a government gaining advantages over other jurisdictions by devising and enforcing their own regulations regarding trade (and later the commerce) have been known. Governments have been and continue to be so motivated].

Some USA states could gain economic advantages (that would be to the disadvantage of other USA states if the federal government did not retain supreme jurisdiction over USA transactions where such questions arise.

I consider my first allegiance is to the entire USA rather than to a region or a particular state. I’m among those pleased the United States of America’s constitution better serves my preference in this matter.

I continue to assume you’re opposed to the Import Certificate proposal because you do not accept the concept that annual trade deficits are immediate economic detriments to their nation’s economies. I’m opposed to the undermining USA’s economy to better serve the economic interests of those beyond our borders or for the benefit of any entities’ financial interests.

I believe we both are advocates for self-determination. If you truly believe that trade deficits are not to the detriment of their nation’s economies, why aren’t you an advocate of removing the U.S. Constitution’s clauses granting federal government supreme jurisdiction over international and interstate trade and commerce?

Why do you not advocate to what you apparently consider the Articles of Confederations superior concept in this matter?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Edward Baiamonte, the founding 13 member governments’ delegates that signed the “Articles of Confederation” then retained a great deal sovereignty for their governments. Later a convention for the revision of what was perceived as that agreement’s weaknesses consequentially drafted an entirely new constitution for the United States of America.

100% illiterate and liberal of course. The Virginia Compact, and the Annapolis Convention, that led up to the Constitutional Convention were all designed to promote free trade among the states. You oppose freedom and free trade while even Krugman and economists on both sides in general support it which is why we have more and more of it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I consider my first allegiance is to the entire USA

too bad we have state govts that should be allowed to tax goods from states that have comparative advantages according to your nutso logic!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you do not accept the concept that annual trade deficits are immediate economic detriments to their nation’s economies.

of course not, you are mistaking the symptom for the cause. A child would see this. If one state is not competitive it should become competitive rather than launch a series of trade wars that will impoverish the world out of pure ignorance!

 

[Supposn]

100% illiterate and liberal of course. The Virginia Compact, and the Annapolis Convention, that led up to the Constitutional Convention were all designed to promote free trade among the states. You oppose freedom and free trade while even Krugman and economists on both sides in general support it which is why we have more and more of it.

Edward Baiamonte, you share my 3-year-old grandchild’s ability to overlook or ignore any facts, conditions, or concepts that she suspects may be in conflict with her personal goals.

I’m not a historian but I suspect that even prior to our revolution, the northern colonies produced the greatest volumes and values of goods traded or sold between the 13 colonies.
If what I suspect is true, then even then the southern colonies were of inter-state trade and commerce disadvantage to the northern states.

Under the articles of confederation commerce and trade between the individual states were conducted in manners no different that transactions between sovereign nations. That would certainly explain southern states being more amiable for interstate commerce to be conducted under federal rather than individual states’ laws and regulations.
It’s to our national benefit that the southern delegates were able to negotiate away a good portion of their previous disadvantage.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

you do not accept the concept that annual trade deficits are immediate economic detriments to their nation’s economies.

of course not, you are mistaking the symptom for the cause. A child would see this. If one state is not competitive it should become competitive rather than launch a series of trade wars that will impoverish the world out of pure ignorance!

Edward Baiamonte, it’s contended that USA is at disadvantage to imports of goods from lower wage rate nations. The consequences of lower wage rates are lower prices and/or superior quality than otherwise due to cheaper and/or additional labor of comparable or greater quality being integral to the production of goods.

You do not agree that USA’s wage’s more expensive labor is a contributing factor to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits? You do not agree that annual trade deficits indicate their nation produced less products than otherwise, kept less people working than otherwise, and kept their median wage from being otherwise higher; thus annual trade deficits due to all of these factors are net detrimental to their nation’s economy?

What then is precisely are the alleged symptoms and causes that you claim to recognize but elude me?

Respectfully, Supposn