Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit

[Supposn]

Toddster Patriot, cheaper imports do not compensate for the lesser purchasing power of the median wage.

That is an interesting theory.
I look forward to the proof you'll post.

Toddster Patriot, proof of what?

Do you contend that due to USA’s trade deficits USA’s numbers of jobs and/or their wage scales are not less than otherwise or cheaper imports do compensate for the lesser than otherwise purchasing powered median wage?.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot, cheaper imports do not compensate for the lesser purchasing power of the median wage.

That is an interesting theory.
I look forward to the proof you'll post.

Toddster Patriot, proof of what?

Do you contend that due to USA’s trade deficits USA’s numbers of jobs and/or their wage scales are not less than otherwise or cheaper imports do compensate for the lesser than otherwise purchasing powered median wage?.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, proof of what?

Proof of your claims.
First, proof that trade lowers the median wage.
Second, proof that the lowered median wage isn't compensated for by increased purchasing power.
Looks like you have your work cut out for you.

 

[Supposn]

Toddster Patriot, .........
......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP but it would have put an aggregate of USA purchasers in improved cash flow positions.
The eventual affect of such transactions would be undetermined until U.S. purchasers spent the money deliberately or regardless of purpose, eventually made some purchases that actually did or would affect USA’s GDP.

If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s trade deficit,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $453,000,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s imports of goods and shifted to USA’s exports of goods, and USA's purchases remained constant, USA’s 2011 balance of trade and our GDP would have increased by $906,000,000,000.

In all of these 3 cases there would have been a net increase of USA’s median wage’s purchasing power and the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar would have been strengthened.

Respectfully, Supposn

Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP

YES! Cutting those imports to zero and reducing our oil consumption by the same amount does not change GDP.

“trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”

You've just admitted your above claim is wrong. Finally.

Toddster Patriot, you attributed a single sentence within my discussing reduction of a trade deficit. You implied that single sentence is my entire opinion regarding replacing the excess expenditure for imported goods with expenditures for wealth transfer transactions as being my entire opinion upon the that small facet of reducing a trade deficit. Regarding that facet it is a falsehood.

I do not believe it was an honest error; I believe you deliberately and disingenuously quoted me out of content. “Disingenuous” is a “softer” word that describes communicating a falsehood; (it is a method of lying).

(I will not speculate if you intended to imply that sentence is my entire opinion regarding all facets of trade deficit reduction. If that was your intention, it would be a greater lie.

Supposn
////////////

Excerpted from “ Disingenuous - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary ”:
Definition of DISINGENUOUS
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING
— dis•in•gen•u•ous•ly adverb
— dis•in•gen•u•ous•ness noun
V

 

[Supposn]

Proof of your claims.
First, proof that trade lowers the median wage.
Second, proof that the lowered median wage isn't compensated for by increased purchasing power.
Looks like you have your work cut out for you.

Toddster Patriot, I and I believe most economists and USA voters axiomatically accept increasing USA’s trade deficit per capita, expressed in U.S. dollars of equal purchasing power would reduce USA’s numbers of jobs and/or their purchasing power more than otherwise.

Why would you believe otherwise?
The balls in your court.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot, .........
......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP but it would have put an aggregate of USA purchasers in improved cash flow positions.
The eventual affect of such transactions would be undetermined until U.S. purchasers spent the money deliberately or regardless of purpose, eventually made some purchases that actually did or would affect USA’s GDP.

If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s trade deficit,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $453,000,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s imports of goods and shifted to USA’s exports of goods, and USA's purchases remained constant, USA’s 2011 balance of trade and our GDP would have increased by $906,000,000,000.

In all of these 3 cases there would have been a net increase of USA’s median wage’s purchasing power and the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar would have been strengthened.

Respectfully, Supposn

Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP

YES! Cutting those imports to zero and reducing our oil consumption by the same amount does not change GDP.

“trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”

You've just admitted your above claim is wrong. Finally.

Toddster Patriot, you attributed a single sentence within my discussing reduction of a trade deficit. You implied that single sentence is my entire opinion regarding replacing the excess expenditure for imported goods with expenditures for wealth transfer transactions as being my entire opinion upon the that small facet of reducing a trade deficit. Regarding that facet it is a falsehood.

I do not believe it was an honest error; I believe you deliberately and disingenuously quoted me out of content. “Disingenuous” is a “softer” word that describes communicating a falsehood; (it is a method of lying).

(I will not speculate if you intended to imply that sentence is my entire opinion regarding all facets of trade deficit reduction. If that was your intention, it would be a greater lie.

Supposn
////////////

Excerpted from “ Disingenuous - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary ”:
Definition of DISINGENUOUS
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING
— dis•in•gen•u•ous•ly adverb
— dis•in•gen•u•ous•ness noun
V

You said

“trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”

I showed you your error. You admitted your error.

Now you're being quoted out of context?

Show me in what context your claim is correct.

Use your GDP formula.

 

[Supposn]

You said “trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”

I showed you your error. You admitted your error.
Now you're being quoted out of context?
Show me in what context your claim is correct.
Use your GDP formula.

Quote: Originally Posted by Supposn

Quote: Originally Posted by Supposn
Toddster Patriot, .........
......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP but it would have put an aggregate of USA purchasers in improved cash flow positions.
The eventual affect of such transactions would be undetermined until U.S. purchasers spent the money deliberately or regardless of purpose, eventually made some purchases that actually did or would affect USA’s GDP.If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products, USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s trade deficit and shifted to purchase of USA domestic goods, , USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $453,000,000,000.
If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s imports of goods and shifted to USA’s exports of goods, and USA's purchases remained constant, USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $906, 0500,000,000.

In all of these 3 cases there would have been a net increase of USA’s median wage’s purchasing power and the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar would have been strengthened.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

You said "trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”

I showed you your error. You admitted your error.
Now you're being quoted out of context?
Show me in what context your claim is correct.
Use your GDP formula.

Quote: Originally Posted by Supposn
Toddster Patriot, .........
......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP but it would have put an aggregate of USA purchasers in improved cash flow positions.
The eventual affect of such transactions would be undetermined until U.S. purchasers spent the money deliberately or regardless of purpose, eventually made some purchases that actually did or would affect USA’s GDP. ……………………

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Toddster Patriot, regarding any portion of those $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions:

Within many, if not most cases of USA expenditures within individual wealth transfer transactions, some and possibly all of that wealth will eventually become involved in transactions regarding goods or service products.

To any extent those eventual transactions are for the purpose of final purchasing or producing USA domestic products, it would increase the then current USA’s global trade balance. Thus to the extent that we replaced 2011 expenditures for imported products with expenditures for wealth transactions that eventually are used to purchase or produce USA domestic products, we have increased USA’s GDP at some future time.

Thus the net consequence was not to immediatly reduce USA’s trade deficit but to delay the purchase of products affect upon USA’s GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

GDP = [private consumption + gross investment + government spending]
+ [exports - [imports]

GDP = [C + I + G] + [X - M] = [USA Purchases of products]+ [USA balance of trade]

/////////////////////////////////

If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products, USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

2011 GDP = [C + I + G] + [X - M]= [Purchases] – [X – M].
2012 GDP = [P - 226,500,000,0000] + [X - (M -453,000,000,000)].
2012 GDP = 2011 GDP +226.500,000.

/////////////////////////////////

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s trade deficit and shifted to purchase of USA domestic goods, , USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $453,000,000,000.

2011 GDP = [C + I + G] + [X - M]
2012 GDP = [C + I + G] + [X - (M -453,000,000,000)]= 2011 GDP + 453,000,000,000

.
/////////////////////////////////
If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s imports of goods and shifted to USA’s exports of goods, and USA's purchases remained constant, USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $906, 0500,000,000.

2011 GDP = [C + I + G] + [X - M]
2012 GDP = [C + I + G] + [(X +453,000,000,000) - (M -453,000,000,000)]
2012 GDP = 2011 GDP + 90,000,000,000.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////

Within all 3 of these examples 2012 wage’s purchasing power and the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar would have additionally strengthened.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said “trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”

I showed you your error. You admitted your error.
Now you're being quoted out of context?
Show me in what context your claim is correct.
Use your GDP formula.

Quote: Originally Posted by Supposn

Quote: Originally Posted by Supposn
Toddster Patriot, .........
......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP but it would have put an aggregate of USA purchasers in improved cash flow positions.
The eventual affect of such transactions would be undetermined until U.S. purchasers spent the money deliberately or regardless of purpose, eventually made some purchases that actually did or would affect USA’s GDP.If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products, USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s trade deficit and shifted to purchase of USA domestic goods, , USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $453,000,000,000.
If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s imports of goods and shifted to USA’s exports of goods, and USA's purchases remained constant, USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $906, 0500,000,000.

In all of these 3 cases there would have been a net increase of USA’s median wage’s purchasing power and the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar would have been strengthened.
Respectfully, Supposn

No. Stop. We're not talking about US consumers buying more US goods causing US production to increase. That wasn't your claim. We aren't talking about increasing production to increase exports. That wasn't your claim.

You said any trade deficit hurts GDP. I showed you your error.
You admitted your error and now you're backtracking.
You can just stop dancing.

......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP

Proof of your error, in your own words. Thanks.

 

[Supposn]

[No. Stop. We're not talking about US consumers buying more US goods causing US production to increase. That wasn't your claim. We aren't talking about increasing production to increase exports. That wasn't your claim.

You said any trade deficit hurts GDP. I showed you your error.
You admitted your error and now you're backtracking.
You can just stop dancing.

......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP

Proof of your error, in your own words. Thanks.

Toddster Patriot, All monetary transactions are either for transfers of wealth or for goods and/or service products. All product transactions are factors within the calculation of their nation’s GDP. The consequences of wealth transfers are additional wealth transfers and/or product transactions. Within all nations’ economic systems wealth does not generally sit inert; (i.e. wealth is generally employed).

You asked for examples of modified trade deficit statistics affecting their nation’s GDP. A nation’s balance of global trade can only be modified by the modifying its imports and/or export amounts. If we reduce our expenditures, what’s then done with the money?

Transfers of wealth do not directly affect GDP but to some extent some of that wealth will eventually again be spent. We’re then back to the original spending choice, (i.e. products or additional wealth transfers).

I did point out that trade deficit’s immediate detriment to the nation’s GDP could be recouped if we were importing production supporting products. Unfortunately USA’s imports are primarily for consumption. If my speculation of expenditure disbursements displeases you, I again invite you to reveal your alternative scenario.

It will soon be Yon Kipper. I’ll be back on line tomorrow night or on Thursday.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I did point out that trade deficit’s immediate detriment to the nation’s GDP

Why are you so consistently afraid to say what you have against free trade?

You want welfare for American manufactures and to pretend the moral hazard won't make them even less competitive and less world class.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[No. Stop. We're not talking about US consumers buying more US goods causing US production to increase. That wasn't your claim. We aren't talking about increasing production to increase exports. That wasn't your claim.

You said any trade deficit hurts GDP. I showed you your error.
You admitted your error and now you're backtracking.
You can just stop dancing.

......Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP

Proof of your error, in your own words. Thanks.

Toddster Patriot, All monetary transactions are either for transfers of wealth or for goods and/or service products. All product transactions are factors within the calculation of their nation’s GDP. The consequences of wealth transfers are additional wealth transfers and/or product transactions. Within all nations’ economic systems wealth does not generally sit inert; (i.e. wealth is generally employed).

You asked for examples of modified trade deficit statistics affecting their nation’s GDP. A nation’s balance of global trade can only be modified by the modifying its imports and/or export amounts. If we reduce our expenditures, what’s then done with the money?

Transfers of wealth do not directly affect GDP but to some extent some of that wealth will eventually again be spent. We’re then back to the original spending choice, (i.e. products or additional wealth transfers).

I did point out that trade deficit’s immediate detriment to the nation’s GDP could be recouped if we were importing production supporting products. Unfortunately USA’s imports are primarily for consumption. If my speculation of expenditure disbursements displeases you, I again invite you to reveal your alternative scenario.

It will soon be Yon Kipper. I’ll be back on line tomorrow night or on Thursday.

Respectfully, Supposn

If we reduce our expenditures, what’s then done with the money?

In this case, it's put under a pillow.

Now that we've seen that a trade deficit doesn't always hurt GDP, we can discuss how cutting out $453 billion in oil imports would actually crush our economy.
So in this case, a trade deficit helps GDP and increases median income and employment.

 

[Supposn]

If we reduce our expenditures, what’s then done with the money?

In this case, it's put under a pillow.

Now that we've seen that a trade deficit doesn't always hurt GDP, we can discuss how cutting out $453 billion in oil imports would actually crush our economy.
So in this case, a trade deficit helps GDP and increases median income and employment.

Toddster Patriot, I doubt within our economy people normally stash extremely large sums of dollars for minimum durations of a year? In pillow cases? $453,000,000,000? Upon this contention one of us is at best ignorant or disingenuous.

I regret some idiot is hacking into your messages and inserting references to adoption of this Import Certificate, (IC) proposal causing an annual USA’s ($453 billion dollars) amount of petroleum import reduction. The IC proposal could not prevent the importation of any amount of minerals that appear within the proposal’s list of specific scarce or precious minerals. I will not entertain any discussion upon this point.

I did mention the possibility of a temporary trade deficit due to importation of production supporting products could cause some future benefits to their nations’ GDPs. If that occurred, USA’s trade deficits thereafter would be extremely reduced if not eliminated.

Unfortunately the USA has been suffering trade deficits of goods in excess of a half century; that’s not a temporary condition. The vast majority of USA’s trade deficits have not been due to imported production supporting goods. Thus for more than a half century, USA’s annual trade deficits (more than otherwise), ALWAYS have been detrimental to our nation’s GDPs.

Supposn

 

[Supposn]

I did point out that trade deficit’s immediate detriment to the nation’s GDP

Why are you so consistently afraid to say what you have against free trade?
You want welfare for American manufactures and to pretend the moral hazard won't make them even less competitive and less world class.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

Edward Baiamonte, many factors affect GDP but our aggregate trade deficits’ most clearly a net detriment to our GDP and our median wage. Because of the extent of voter’s general dissatisfaction with foreign goods proportion of SA’s domestic market sales and the relative ease to remedy it, our trade deficit is a more (than other politically likely candidates), a factor to be modified for the improvement of our GDP.

I believe many of those who are not populists are uncomfortable with, (if not actually opposed to) higher purchasing power for USA’s median wage. Most of those people are not so foolish as to actually believe that trade deficits are of benefit to their nations’ economies but they cannot accept trades deficits’ being in themselves detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Most of us share the common logical fault of first determining the outcome we prefer and then rationalizing why others should behave in a manner to fore fill our desired results. Most of those who believe themselves to be conservatives will not admit that they are opposed to increased purchasing power for the median wage and lesser increased portions of our population that earn significantly less than the median wage.

I’m not opposed to free trade or free enterprise. I am opposed to a trade policy that is detrimental to USA’s median wage’s purchasing power or the numbers of USA jobs per capita. This market driven IC policy would increase our GDP, the purchasing power of our median wage, and (because IC’s additionally subsidize USA exports), it will increase USA’s total of aggregate imports plus exports.

The proposal “caps” USA global imports of assessed goods to that of our exports. It limits USA wage earners’ disadvantage to cheaper foreign labor. You believe cheap foreign goods compensate USA wage earning families for our trade deficit’s detriment to the median wage?

The proposal’s not absolutely pure free global trade, is absolutely pure free enterprise, retains and will expand USA’s global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If we reduce our expenditures, what’s then done with the money?

In this case, it's put under a pillow.

Now that we've seen that a trade deficit doesn't always hurt GDP, we can discuss how cutting out $453 billion in oil imports would actually crush our economy.
So in this case, a trade deficit helps GDP and increases median income and employment.

Toddster Patriot, I doubt within our economy people normally stash extremely large sums of dollars for minimum durations of a year? In pillow cases? $453,000,000,000? Upon this contention one of us is at best ignorant or disingenuous.

I regret some idiot is hacking into your messages and inserting references to adoption of this Import Certificate, (IC) proposal causing an annual USA’s ($453 billion dollars) amount of petroleum import reduction. The IC proposal could not prevent the importation of any amount of minerals that appear within the proposal’s list of specific scarce or precious minerals. I will not entertain any discussion upon this point.

I did mention the possibility of a temporary trade deficit due to importation of production supporting products could cause some future benefits to their nations’ GDPs. If that occurred, USA’s trade deficits thereafter would be extremely reduced if not eliminated.

Unfortunately the USA has been suffering trade deficits of goods in excess of a half century; that’s not a temporary condition. The vast majority of USA’s trade deficits have not been due to imported production supporting goods. Thus for more than a half century, USA’s annual trade deficits (more than otherwise), ALWAYS have been detrimental to our nation’s GDPs.

Supposn

Toddster Patriot, I doubt within our economy people normally stash extremely large sums of dollars for minimum durations of a year?

You're the only one who gets to make silly stage one assumptions?

I regret some idiot is hacking into your messages and inserting references to adoption of this Import Certificate, (IC) proposal causing an annual USA’s ($453 billion dollars) amount of petroleum import reduction.

Maybe it was the same idiot who said trade deficits always hurt our GDP?
Despite clear evidence that the $453 billion in oil imports in 2011 helped our GDP.

 

[expat_panama]

GDP = [private consumption + gross investment + government spending]
+ [exports - [imports]

GDP = [C + I + G] + [X - M] = [USA Purchases of products]+ [USA balance of trade]

/////////////////////////////////

If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products, USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

2011 GDP = [C + I + G] + [X - M]= [Purchases] – [X – M].
2012 GDP = [P - 226,500,000,0000] + [X - (M -453,000,000,000)].
2012 GDP = 2011 GDP +226.500,000...

Wow, what a blast from the past!

Those kiddie formulas were super easy for beginners but they ended up being too misleading for continuing students facing the fact that in real life the GDP goes up when the trade deficit gets bigger. Sure, the beginner's formula's great for pushing goofy left-wing screeds, but folks like us working for a living with trade aren't allowed to make things up and we actually have to know what's going on.

That's why we use:

GDP = GNP + NR -E - NY – NCT + CAB

GNP = Gross National Product
NR = Net income from assets abroad (Net Income Receipts)
E = Excess of Exports over Imports (AKA Trade Deficit)
NY = Net income abroad
NCT = Net current transfers
CAB = Current Account Balance​

​

It's a far more useful formula because it reflects what actually happens on the Planet Earth...

 

[Supposn]

September 16, 2012, transcript of message #305, September 16, 2012:

GDP = R + I + P + SA + W

R : rents
I : interests
P : profits
SA : statistical adjustments (corporate income taxes, dividends, undistributed corporate profits)
W : wages​

GDP = COE + GOS + GMI + TP & M – SP & M

Compensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to social security and other such programs.
Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses. Often called profits, although only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output to calculate GOS.
Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated businesses. This often includes most small businesses.
TP & M – SP & M are taxes less subsidies on production and imports​

​

[/INDENT]--and the best students go on to classes where they learn how the trade deficit amount increases the GDP in this formula:

GDP = GNP + NR -E - NY – NCT + CAB

GNP = Gross National Product
NR = Net income from assets abroad (Net Income Receipts
E = Excess of Exports over Imports
NY = Net income abroad
NCT = Net current transfers
CAB = Current Account Balance​

​

The bottom line here is what's happening in real life. Every time that stupid 'trade deficit' gets bigger...

...employment and production soar.

ExPat_Panama, there are other formulas for GDP but if those that include consumer spending must also include balance of trade. Because the formulas you offer include transfers of wealth, I doubt that they are among any conventionally recognized formulas employed by recognizable global statisticians or economists communities.

I’ll be offline for a couple of days. That will give you time to find any authoritative link for the formulas you offer. I do not believe them to be formulas for GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

September 18, 2012, Excerpted from message #309, September 16, 2012:

ExPat_Panama, I contended that the formulas you submitted are not conventionally acceptable formulas to calculate GDP. I requested an authoritative link that would indicate I’m in error. Do you intend to respond?

You’re presenting a formula:
GDP = GNP + NR -E - NY – NCT + CA[/B]

I suppose “CA[/B]” to be a typographical error. It was meant to be “CAB”?
The formula supposingly describes the difference between a nation’s GDP and GNP.
It is not a formula for calculation of GDP. I have not studied it; I do not know if it’s authoritative.

My concern is for the GDP which has a much greater (than the GNP’s), affect upon numbers of USA jobs and the median wage. I’m more particularly concerned about the trade deficit because it has a more precise (than the GDP as a whole) proportional affect, (i.e. it has greater leverage per dollar) upon the numbers of USA jobs and median wage.

Respectfully, Supposn

Wow, what a blast from the past!
Those kiddie formulas were super easy for beginners but they ended up being too misleading for continuing students facing the fact that in real life the GDP goes up when the trade deficit gets bigger. Sure, the beginner's formula's great for pushing goofy left-wing screeds, but folks like us working for a living with trade aren't allowed to make things up and we actually have to know what's going on.

That's why we use:

GDP = GNP + NR -E - NY – NCT + CAB,

GNP = Gross National Product ................................
.............. It's a far more useful formula because it reflects what actually happens on the Planet Earth...

​

Why have you resubmitted your September 16 message? The formula you provided did not then calculate the GDP. Did you think that t ripened and suddenly transformed to become a valid formula for calculating the GDP?

You’ve provided a formula that relates GDP and GNP.
I do not know if it’s a valid formula. Do you have an authoritative link?

The formula you provided is not a formula for calculating GDP. If you have a different GDP calculating formula and an authoritative source, I will certainly consider that formula.


Respectfully Supposn​

​

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

September 16, 2012, transcript of message #305, September 16, 2012:

GDP = R + I + P + SA + W

R : rents
I : interests
P : profits
SA : statistical adjustments (corporate income taxes, dividends, undistributed corporate profits)
W : wages​

GDP = COE + GOS + GMI + TP & M – SP & M

Compensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to social security and other such programs.
Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses. Often called profits, although only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output to calculate GOS.
Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated businesses. This often includes most small businesses.
TP & M – SP & M are taxes less subsidies on production and imports​

​

[/INDENT]--and the best students go on to classes where they learn how the trade deficit amount increases the GDP in this formula:

GDP = GNP + NR -E - NY – NCT + CAB

GNP = Gross National Product
NR = Net income from assets abroad (Net Income Receipts
E = Excess of Exports over Imports
NY = Net income abroad
NCT = Net current transfers
CAB = Current Account Balance​

​

The bottom line here is what's happening in real life. Every time that stupid 'trade deficit' gets bigger...

...employment and production soar.

ExPat_Panama, there are other formulas for GDP but if those that include consumer spending must also include balance of trade. Because the formulas you offer include transfers of wealth, I doubt that they are among any conventionally recognized formulas employed by recognizable global statisticians or economists communities.

I’ll be offline for a couple of days. That will give you time to find any authoritative link for the formulas you offer. I do not believe them to be formulas for GDP.

Respectfully, Supposn

September 18, 2012, Excerpted from message #309, September 16, 2012:

ExPat_Panama, I contended that the formulas you submitted are not conventionally acceptable formulas to calculate GDP. I requested an authoritative link that would indicate I’m in error. Do you intend to respond?

You’re presenting a formula:
GDP = GNP + NR -E - NY – NCT + CA[/B]

I suppose “CA[/B]” to be a typographical error. It was meant to be “CAB”?
The formula supposingly describes the difference between a nation’s GDP and GNP.
It is not a formula for calculation of GDP. I have not studied it; I do not know if it’s authoritative.

My concern is for the GDP which has a much greater (than the GNP’s), affect upon numbers of USA jobs and the median wage. I’m more particularly concerned about the trade deficit because it has a more precise (than the GDP as a whole) proportional affect, (i.e. it has greater leverage per dollar) upon the numbers of USA jobs and median wage.

Respectfully, Supposn

Wow, what a blast from the past!
Those kiddie formulas were super easy for beginners but they ended up being too misleading for continuing students facing the fact that in real life the GDP goes up when the trade deficit gets bigger. Sure, the beginner's formula's great for pushing goofy left-wing screeds, but folks like us working for a living with trade aren't allowed to make things up and we actually have to know what's going on.

That's why we use:

GDP = GNP + NR -E - NY – NCT + CAB

GNP = Gross National Product ................................
.............. It's a far more useful formula because it reflects what actually happens on the Planet Earth...

​

Why have you resubmitted your September 16 message? The formula you provided did not then calculate the GDP. Did you think that t ripened and suddenly transformed to become a valid formula for calculating the GDP?

You’ve provided a formula that relates GDP and GNP.
I do not know if it’s a valid formula. Do you have an authoritative link?

The formula you provided is not a formula for calculating GDP. If you have a different GDP calculating formula and an authoritative source, I will certainly consider that formula.


Respectfully Supposn​

​

goofy liberal still pushing what even Buffett calls a tariff ??????

did you know we have free trade because virtually all economists agree that the more you trade the richer you get and the less you trade the poorer you get??

Imagine if you had to make everything yourself??​

​

 

[Supposn]

goofy liberal still pushing what even Buffett calls a tariff ??????
did you know we have free trade because virtually all economists agree that the more you trade the richer you get and the less you trade the poorer you get??
Imagine if you had to make everything yourself??

Edward Baiamonte, I fully responded to this within message #354.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

goofy liberal still pushing what even Buffett calls a tariff ??????
did you know we have free trade because virtually all economists agree that the more you trade the richer you get and the less you trade the poorer you get??
Imagine if you had to make everything yourself??

Edward Baiamonte, I fully responded to this within message #354.
Respectfully, Supposn

PLease stop the BS!! You lack the IQ for substance so change the subject and pretend you have addressed it. Do you enjoy fooling yourself??

Why be so afraid to say why you are opposed to free trade and are for a tariff??? What does your fear tell us??