What's new
US Message Board šŸ¦… Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

USA's trade deficits of goods and costs per units

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
229
Points
85
USA's trade deficits of goods and costs per units:

ā€œEconomies of scaleā€ are particularly higher within mass produced or mass delivery of goods and services. Due to foreign producers of less expensive steel, USA's production of steel had to be reduced, further increasing the cost per ton of USA produced steel; which in turn increases the price advantage of imported steel and additional rounds of increasing per unit costs of USA steel.

While USA steel production is being reduced, the costs of USA manufactured items using steel are also being increased; those producer's costs were already at disadvantage due to imports from lower-wage nations, they also had to reduce their production and the further price increases of their products naturally led to further production reductions or entire terminations of USA manufacturing sites.

Economies of scale concept is not limited to production of metal or plastic products, or only products of goods, but is also a consideration within producers of service products. It is of importance to the delivery of utility services or transportation of cargo or people. These are performed by many enterprises that directly or indirectly support producers of USA goods and service products and effects their costs per units of production.

When producers of USA service or goods products' cost per units are increased, those increases are not only passed on to USA consumers but additionally directly and indirectly to all other USA producers that they serve; due to inter-relationships between USA enterprises and the reduction of USA goods production due to imports from lower-wage nations, consequentially further increases imports price advantages over USA products.

I'll further discuss trade deficits detriment to our nation's GDP within the next post.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
229
Points
85
Further discussion of trade deficits' detriment to their nation's GDP:

The extent of USA's annual trade deficits' reduction of our GDP can only reflect the reduction that negative trade balance amount. The additional loss of production supporting goods and services are accounted for within our lesser than otherwise total GDP, but because the extent of these loses are for goods or service products not reflected within our negative balance of trade, (i.e. our trade deficit), those losses cannot even be estimated and attributed to loses due to our trade deficits of goods. But certainly, our annual trade deficits of goods understate their actual detrimental effects upon USA's productions of goods and services.

Those that believe the reduction of USA manufacturing is of less consequences because it's all going to be robotics and that doesn't require many employees or USA's economy is primarily a service economy are talking nonsense. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.



Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
99,551
Reaction score
35,162
Points
2,250
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Another economic illiterate thread.

I yearn for the old days when only leftists were economic retards.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,082
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
USA's trade deficits of goods and costs per units:

ā€œEconomies of scaleā€ are particularly higher within mass produced or mass delivery of goods and services. Due to foreign producers of less expensive steel, USA's production of steel had to be reduced, further increasing the cost per ton of USA produced steel; which in turn increases the price advantage of imported steel and additional rounds of increasing per unit costs of USA steel.

While USA steel production is being reduced, the costs of USA manufactured items using steel are also being increased; those producer's costs were already at disadvantage due to imports from lower-wage nations, they also had to reduce their production and the further price increases of their products naturally led to further production reductions or entire terminations of USA manufacturing sites.

Economies of scale concept is not limited to production of metal or plastic products, or only products of goods, but is also a consideration within producers of service products. It is of importance to the delivery of utility services or transportation of cargo or people. These are performed by many enterprises that directly or indirectly support producers of USA goods and service products and effects their costs per units of production.

When producers of USA service or goods products' cost per units are increased, those increases are not only passed on to USA consumers but additionally directly and indirectly to all other USA producers that they serve; due to inter-relationships between USA enterprises and the reduction of USA goods production due to imports from lower-wage nations, consequentially further increases imports price advantages over USA products.

I'll further discuss trade deficits detriment to our nation's GDP within the next post.

Respectfully, Supposn
Trump exempted all the countries we have steel trade deficits with. Further, he protected their steel industries by putting a tariff on all their competitors and potential competitors for the U.S.'s market.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
229
Points
85
USA's trade deficits of goods and costs per units:
This post's a rewrite of much that was in post #1.
[Economies of scale are particularly higher within mass produced or mass delivery of goods and services]

After World War 2, foreign lower-wage produced and priced products containing steel began crowding USA manufactures out of the marketplaces and reduced the potential USA customers for USA produced steel. This reduced USA's production of both steel and products containing steel and consequentially somewhat reduced those USA producers' economies of scale; (i.e. increased their products per unit costs).

Later foreign lower-wage produced and priced steel itself began crowding USA steel manufactures out of the marketplaces. This further reduced USA's production of steel and due to the same economies of scale, it further increased the costs of USA produced steel.

Each increase of USA products costs in comparison to foreign costs induce further rounds of reduced USA production due to competing imported products and the lesser USA needs for steel; (i.e. if there are fewer USA producers of products containing steel, USA has a lesser need for steel).

Respectfully, Supposn
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
229
Points
85
After World War Two:

Fortunately for USA's steel producers, USA's robust post-war building boom required infrastructure productions that used steel. Politicians are reluctant to publicly appropriate public funds for public works to be built from foreign steel. Don't we wish that the Democrats and Republicans could now continue to agree upon federal supported public Infrastructure repairs, remodeling, and new construction?

Any improvements of ocean shipping's speed or cost are currently net detrimental to USA's steel producers because they lose some ā€œhome team advantagesā€. USA steel producers that lack good access, (i.e. unimproved railroads, river and canal shipping options) to customers that are closer to USA's ocean ports, similarly lack some ā€œhome team advantagesā€).

The Marshall Plan to revive Europe's economy was, (and I suppose still is) being paid for by USA taxpayers. It was both altruistic and for the benefit of USA's political goals. Hitler taught us the cost of demanding a pound of a defeated enemy's flesh. We rebuilt Western Germany and much of Japan's Island. But I believe we more favored the Europeans rather than the Asians.

To the extent that USA steel producers didn't update their facilities while the remainder of the world was replaced and increased the capacity of theirs that were destroyed or otherwise severely depreciated and/or outdated during the war, gave modernized foreign competitors an additional foot into USA customers' doors.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
229
Points
85
Trump exempted all the countries we have steel trade deficits with. Further, he protected their steel industries by putting a tariff on all their competitors and potential competitors for the U.S.'s market.
TheOldSchool, foreign Steel is, (or prior to President Trump's tariffs were) at lesser than USA steel's prices to USA purchasers. USA remaining producers of products requiring steel or requiring component containing steel were paying the lower prices for steel. Most of those producers purchasing lower priced steel, are themselves competing with lower with lower-priced imported products.

the USA tariffs are only upon steel and aluminum from China, it seems that president Trump is granting exceptions to many, if not all other nations that produce lower-priced steel; it's questionable to what extent will our tariffs effectively reduce imports of those metals? If USA tariffs are effective, will USA producers increase their already higher (than foreign) prices of those metals?

If the tariffs on Chinese steel are successful, (i.e. if lower priced steel isn't imported from a nation other than China), USA producers that purchase steel or components that include steel will have to pay the higher price for USA steel.

This will further increase the costs and prices of USA products requiring steel. That will further reduce those USA products sales, which in turn reduces their economies of scale, which further increases their prices, which further reduces their production volumes and their economies of scale.

The consequences of a successful tariff upon steel would be to eventually reduce USA production of products that contain steel or component that contain steel unless we levy tariffs on products that contain steel.

But if we levy tariffs on products that contain steel, USA consumers will turn to substitute products that contain more plastic and less or no steel. So if that tariff is successful, we'll have to place a tariff on products containing plastic? You see how this is going?

I'm among the proponents of the policy described within Wikipedia's ā€œImport Certificatesā€ article.

Import Certificate policy would significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that will increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. The federal fee rate that exporters of USA goods would Choose, (they're not required) to pay, would by law only be annually set to defray all direct federal expenses due to the trade policy. All of the policies net expenses are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods. Increases of prices to USA purchasers that exceed the federal fee rate, are due to market behaviors and serve as indirect but effective subsidies of USA's exported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

šŸ’² Amazon Deals šŸ’²

Forum List

Top