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

[Supposn]

...you offer your own or someone else’s trade proposal...

If you're imagining that I'm offering some proposal for government run trade, then please also imagine my regretting the action and repenting. Let's go back to talking about what exists in reality. You said when you started this thread that you are--

...a proponent of Warren Buffett’s concept to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods...

--so let's look at just what it is that you're trying to decrease:

Frankly, none of us can see anything here we don't like. Whatever it is that you're objecting to and wanting to fix is something that 'ain't broke'.

.............................the only way we can export goods without importing them is to buy foreign factories--

..................../QUOTE]

I am not opposed to USA’s global trade. A USA Import Certificate policy would likely increase our aggregate volume of global trade.
I am opposed to USA’s trade deficit.

[The IC proposal would not apply to service products or to minerals integral to globally traded goods, or to intellectual or otherwise intangible goods). Such products are beyond this proposal’s scope. It would handle all other products superbly].

Eliminating or reducing USA’s global trade was not suggested by me; you introduced the foolish notion.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A USA Import Certificate policy would likely increase our aggregate volume of global trade.

of course thats a flat out and typical liberal lie. Hawley Smoot tariffs and trade wars greatly diminish international trade!!

You simply lack the intelligence to be here!! Sorry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

An economic stimulus at no expense. Warren Buffett’s proposal to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit.
I'm a proponent of Warren Buffett’s concept to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods. A senate bill based upon the concept was proposed in 2006 by Senators Dorgan and Feingold.
Trade deficit's detriment to the gross domestic product, (GDP) exceeds the amount of the deficit itself. Anything detrimental to the GDP is generally detrimental to the median wage.

SNIP

Refer to: World Wide Web site “USA-Trade-Deficit,Blogspot.Com “.
Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah, after all, Smoot-Hawley worked out so well, why not give protectionism another try? So it might trigger another 13 year depression, what's the big deal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

An economic stimulus at no expense. Warren Buffett’s proposal to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit.
I'm a proponent of Warren Buffett’s concept to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods. A senate bill based upon the concept was proposed in 2006 by Senators Dorgan and Feingold.
Trade deficit's detriment to the gross domestic product, (GDP) exceeds the amount of the deficit itself. Anything detrimental to the GDP is generally detrimental to the median wage.

SNIP

Refer to: World Wide Web site “USA-Trade-Deficit,Blogspot.Com “.
Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah, after all, Smoot-Hawley worked out so well, why not give protectionism another try? So it might trigger another 13 year depression, what's the big deal?

sure why not, a little liberal magic paper shuffling in Washington will solve the whole problem of an increasingly uncompetitive liberal economy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

sure why not, a little liberal magic paper shuffling in Washington will solve the whole problem of an increasingly uncompetitive liberal economy.

It's amazing. The left seems to have absolutely zero grasp of macroeconomics.

Protectionism at this juncture is close to the worst possible move we could make. (War with China being the absolute worst.) You are spot on with creating competitiveness. The "big lie" is that labor costs are the root of America's inability to compete. The truth is regulatory compliance costs drive an inability to compete.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

sure why not, a little liberal magic paper shuffling in Washington will solve the whole problem of an increasingly uncompetitive liberal economy.

It's amazing. The left seems to have absolutely zero grasp of macroeconomics.

Protectionism at this juncture is close to the worst possible move we could make. (War with China being the absolute worst.) You are spot on with creating competitiveness. The "big lie" is that labor costs are the root of America's inability to compete. The truth is regulatory compliance costs drive an inability to compete.

yes that's a huge part of it for sure but don't forget we also have the highest business taxes in the world, the worst public schools, the most expensive health care, the biggest debt( so the Chinese can buy our debt rather than our products) and many other liberal impediments to our economy.

 

[expat_panama]

...You said when you started this thread that you are--

...a proponent of Warren Buffett’s concept to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods...

--so let's look at just what it is that you're trying to decrease:

...none of us can see anything here we don't like. Whatever it is that you're objecting to and wanting to fix is something that 'ain't broke'.

So we're all clear on the fact that a 'trade deficit' means the US gets more factories and more products, and that means US workers have more jobs and lowered prices for things we buy.

...I am opposed to USA’s trade deficit...

You keep saying that and we keep telling you we like more jobs and lower prices and we don't care if you want fewer jobs and higher prices.

 

[expat_panama]

...The "big lie" is that labor costs are the root of America's inability to compete...

That may actually be true when it comes to unproductive Democrat union thugs, which is why we usually see those clowns on dole instead of on the job. In terms of productivity the vast majority of American workers are way above the rest of the world's labor-forces and are able to demand premium wages.


When they're not paying 'overachiever penalty taxes' that is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So we're all clear on the fact that a 'trade deficit' means the US gets more factories and more products, and that means US workers have more jobs and lowered prices for things we buy.

So, your name is Alice then? Forward is back and up is sideways?

You keep saying that and we keep telling you we like more jobs and lower prices and we don't care if you want fewer jobs and higher prices.

You have more checks in the book, so you're not overdrawn.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That may actually be true when it comes to unproductive Democrat union thugs, which is why we usually see those clowns on dole instead of on the job. In terms of productivity the vast majority of American workers are way above the rest of the world's labor-forces and are able to demand premium wages.


When they're not paying 'overachiever penalty taxes' that is.

Labor costs don't work the way you think they do.

aw = hours worked * hourly wage (usually at standard)
pc = parts complete

Labor cost = aw/pc

So, more efficient labor mitigates a higher hourly rate. In most cases, more than compensates, particularly when the cost of quality is included in the calculation.

In many, if not most, manufacturing situations, the labor costs for American workers is LOWER than with Chinese workers. As you said, efficiency with the unskilled workforce is part of it, but also the higher scrap rate and the increased inspection that is needed to get a usable product out the door.

So again, labor cost is rarely a motivator for off shoring. Cost of compliance includes taxes, fees, licenses, and regulatory issues. These are outrageous in the USA and make it impossible for most industries to produce goods at a competitive cost. Our government has literally sabotaged manufacturing in this country.

 

[Supposn]

It's amazing. The left seems to have absolutely zero grasp of macroeconomics.

Protectionism at this juncture is close to the worst possible move we could make. (War with China being the absolute worst.) You are spot on with creating competitiveness. The "big lie" is that labor costs are the root of America's inability to compete. The truth is regulatory compliance costs drive an inability to compete.

Uncensored 2008, I suppose the same people that fault Smooth-Hawley for a global depression also contend trade deficits are beneficial to their nations’ GDPs. Both assertions are nonsense.

When Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr. A 750% difference of labor costs is not a factor that Maytag could ignore but sacrificing USA’s median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our problems.

If Maytag had been granted immunity from all unreasonable and/or reasonable government regulations, taxes and fees, Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA. Mexico does not produce superior refrigerators and they do not produce them faster,

I would suppose that in cases where the condition of the production was good and had not become obsolete, Maytag relocated their machinery to Mexico and thus reduced the costs of relocating to Mexico. USA’s official policy has always been to be of assistance and seeks to grant every conceivable tax benefit that further enables and encourages the relocation of USA production facilities and the outsourcing of jobs from our nation. Capital is portable and unlike labor which is bond by national borders. USA‘s policies supports practices that are to the best immediate interests of commercial entities and are detrimental to own GDP.

The policies you support restrain increases, (if not actually inducing the reduction) of USA’s median wage's purchasing power due to its reducing the monetary adjusted value of our GDP.

This policy is unstated but popular among those of wealth and power. The best interests of USA wage earners are ignored because this policy hastens reduction of middle income earners' portion of our population.

The policies you support increase poverty of individuals and families. They’re of net economic cost to our entire nation. Those policies continue to decrease the economic gaps between the USA and poorer nations. It’s the race to the bottom.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored 2008, I suppose the same people that fault Smooth-Hawley for a global depression also contend trade deficits are beneficial to their nations’ GDPs. Both assertions are nonsense.

The U.S. trade deficit is unquestionably veneficial to the GDP of China.

When Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr.

Wrong, they reduced their hourly wage. Hourly wage and labor cost are vastly different elements.

In fact, Maytag realized only a 22% reduction in labor costs. Why? Well, it takes 4 Mexican workers to match the production of the Americans, and the cost of quality increased. Further, Maytag virtually destroyed their brand in doing this and avoided outright bankruptcy ONLY through a fire sale to Whirlpool. (Which is owned by Dawoo.)

Maytag Moves to Mexico - In These Times

So, in a product where labor cost was already 18% of the total production cost, (meaning that Maytag realized less than a 4% savings in cost) why would Maytag make such a suicidal move? Care to guess? Maybe a 530% overhead rate?

A 750% difference of labor costs is not a factor that Maytag could ignore but sacrificing USA’s median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our problems.

Except that it WASN'T a 750% difference, it was less than 4% of production cost.

If Maytag had been granted immunity from all unreasonable and/or reasonable government regulations, taxes and fees, Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA. Mexico does not produce superior refrigerators and they do not produce them faster,

Utterly false. 530% overhead was driven by two things, first was EPA compliance, second was Union extortion, pension and healthcare costs. Labor costs were minor in a refrigerator that has a 82% material cost component.

I would suppose that in cases where the condition of the production was good and had not become obsolete, Maytag relocated their machinery to Mexico and thus reduced the costs of relocating to Mexico. USA’s official policy has always been to be of assistance and seeks to grant every conceivable tax benefit that further enables and encourages the relocation of USA production facilities and the outsourcing of jobs from our nation.

Populist hyperbole is fun, utterly false, but fun.

In fact, Galesburg offered tax incentives for Maytag to stay. Then State Sen. Obama opposed any breaks by the state and fought against providing relief at that level. The Federal government gave Maytag nothing, despite your false claim.

Capital is portable and unlike labor which is bond by national borders. USA‘s policies supports practices that are to the best immediate interests of commercial entities and are detrimental to own GDP.

Are you a Marxian?

Obviously labor is not bound by national borders, as any Dell representative will tell you from their office in Calcutta.

The policies you support restrain increases, (if not actually inducing the reduction) of USA’s median wage's purchasing power due to its reducing the monetary adjusted value of our GDP.

Utter nonsense. Retarding growth through protectionism and the culling of foreign markets neither increases GDP, nor does it create greater dispersion patterns of wealth. Quite the opposite in both cases.

What you advocate benefits only the well connected, the looter caste.

This policy is unstated but popular among those of wealth and power. The best interests of USA wage earners are ignored because this policy hastens reduction of middle income earners' portion of our population.

It isn't 1860, nor 1917 Moscow. The idea of button pushers as the productive class is an absurdity. A return to productivity and competitiveness does not include massive factories of unskilled labor pressing buttons to make machines go up and down.

Competitive manufacturing depends on automation and efficiency. Lean and Six Sigma, with more done by less people. That means more enterprises to create the overwhelming output that we are capable of.

So how do we do it? Put Barack Obama in a paper shredder to start. Obviously not literally: But we MUST get rid of the anti-business and anti-manufacturing Juggernaut. Education, and this means REAL education. The time for social promotion and self-esteem focus is gone. Sorry, time to grow up. America MUST be technologically superior - hell, we invent everything, time to use it to our advantage.

And stop importing third world peasants, I know they vote democrat, but they are destroying the nation.

The policies you support increase poverty of individuals and families. They’re of net economic cost to our entire nation. Those policies continue to decrease the economic gaps between the USA and poorer nations. It’s the race to the bottom.

Respectfully, Supposn

Populist nonsense.

 

[expat_panama]

...we're all clear on the fact that a 'trade deficit' means the US gets more factories and more products, and that means US workers have more jobs and lowered prices for things we buy...

...more checks in the book, so you're not overdrawn.

--and nobody care's about which check book and which bank account. All that matters is we're using that word "trade deficit" so suddenly fewer jobs and higher prices are all OK. Doesn't matter if we get out hard numbers on GDP, employment, incomes--

--all that matters is the bogus label 'trade deficit'.

That's how it is; some people love nice words and they listen to Dem rally speeches, and the rest of us work in our businesses and we feed our families. The big problem has been the damage that these 'state control' types have been doing to America, but Nov.'s only a couple weeks away...

 

[Supposn]

...we're all clear on the fact that a 'trade deficit' means the US gets more factories and more products, and that means US workers have more jobs and lowered prices for things we buy...

...more checks in the book, so you're not overdrawn.

--and nobody care's about which check book and which bank account. All that matters is we're using that word "trade deficit" so suddenly fewer jobs and higher prices are all OK. Doesn't matter if we get out hard numbers on GDP, employment, incomes--

--all that matters is the bogus label 'trade deficit'.

That's how it is; some people love nice words and they listen to Dem rally speeches, and the rest of us work in our businesses and we feed our families. The big problem has been the damage that these 'state control' types have been doing to America, but Nov.'s only a couple weeks away...

ExPat_Panama, you’re confusing cause and effect. If our economy’s less robust, our domestic markets sell lesser volumes of goods (than otherwise). Our domestic markets sell less domestically produced and less foreign produced goods (than otherwise under such conditions).

The graph that you linked to is consistent with the afore mentioned explanation. I don't know what point you're trying to make within the remainder of this response you posted.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages.

Respectfully, Suppos

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...we're all clear on the fact that a 'trade deficit' means the US gets more factories and more products, and that means US workers have more jobs and lowered prices for things we buy...

...more checks in the book, so you're not overdrawn.

--and nobody care's about which check book and which bank account. All that matters is we're using that word "trade deficit" so suddenly fewer jobs and higher prices are all OK. Doesn't matter if we get out hard numbers on GDP, employment, incomes--

--all that matters is the bogus label 'trade deficit'.

That's how it is; some people love nice words and they listen to Dem rally speeches, and the rest of us work in our businesses and we feed our families. The big problem has been the damage that these 'state control' types have been doing to America, but Nov.'s only a couple weeks away...

ExPat_Panama, you’re confusing cause and effect. If our economy’s less robust, our domestic markets sell lesser volumes of goods (than otherwise). Our domestic markets sell less domestically produced and less foreign produced goods (than otherwise under such conditions).

The graph that you linked to is consistent with the afore mentioned explanation. I don't know what point you're trying to make within the remainder of this response you posted.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages.

Respectfully, Suppos

Yes! End oil imports, NOW!!!

Our economy will soar!

 

[Supposn]

Yes! End oil imports, NOW!!!

Our economy will soar!

Exclusions to the assessed values of goods.

ToddsterPatriot, if you’re going to critique something, you should make yourself knowledgeable of the subject you’re critiquing. Otherwise your comments appear to be less creditable.

The proposed Import Certificate trade policy is only applicable to goods and excludes from goods assessed d values the values of those materials integral to those goods which explicitly appear upon a list of scarce or rare mineral materials.

Although precious ores gems may be considered as commodities, they are often used in place of currency and to include them within assessed value of goods would undermine the proposal’s ability to eliminate trade deficits of all goods’ adjusted assessed values (which is the proposal’s purpose).

Furthermore we shouldn’t discourage or encourage trade of explicitly identified scarce mineral materials that are of importance to us. If the U.S. Congress would consider petroleum as a scarce mineral it would be explicitly included within the list of precious or scarce mineral materials.

In that case our trade of crude oil or for products within which crude oil’s an integral ingredient would not be affected by this proposal and should be considered and determined by the U.S. Congress as issues separate issues beyond the scope of this proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes! End oil imports, NOW!!!

Our economy will soar!

Exclusions to the assessed values of goods.

ToddsterPatriot, if you’re going to critique something, you should make yourself knowledgeable of the subject you’re critiquing. Otherwise your comments appear to be less creditable.

The proposed Import Certificate trade policy is only applicable to goods and excludes from goods assessed d values the values of those materials integral to those goods which explicitly appear upon a list of scarce or rare mineral materials.

Although precious ores gems may be considered as commodities, they are often used in place of currency and to include them within assessed value of goods would undermine the proposal’s ability to eliminate trade deficits of all goods’ adjusted assessed values (which is the proposal’s purpose).

Furthermore we shouldn’t discourage or encourage trade of explicitly identified scarce mineral materials that are of importance to us. If the U.S. Congress would consider petroleum as a scarce mineral it would be explicitly included within the list of precious or scarce mineral materials.

In that case our trade of crude oil or for products within which crude oil’s an integral ingredient would not be affected by this proposal and should be considered and determined by the U.S. Congress as issues separate issues beyond the scope of this proposal.

Respectfully, Supposn

In that case our trade of crude oil or for products within which crude oil’s an integral ingredient would not be affected by this proposal and should be considered and determined by the U.S. Congress as issues separate issues beyond the scope of this proposal.

Why should we exclude oil?
You said "Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages"

Why are some "immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages" okay and some are not? You'll have to explain the subtle difference between "immediate detriments". Please, I don't want my comments to appear to be less creditable.

As always, your help is greatly appreciated.

 

[Supposn]

Why should we exclude oil?
You said "Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages"

Why are some "immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages" okay and some are not? You'll have to explain the subtle difference between "immediate detriments".

Exclusions to the assessed values of goods.

ToddsterPatriot, the purpose of the Import Certificate policy is to remedy our annual trade deficits’ detriment to our economy. Those deficits’ greatest detriment to our economy is their reduction upon jobs and our median wage.

Precious minerals are often used in place of currency and to include them within assessed value of goods would undermine the proposal’s purpose. Applying the proposal to services is very subjective and thus much less feasible. Applying the proposal to what the U.S. Congress believes to be scarce mineral materials would be an unjustifiable economic risk.
In the case of petroleum it is also an environment issue that is additionally worthy of separate consideration.

The proposal doesn’t guarantee that USA’s entire global trade deficit will be eliminated but it does guarantee elimination of our annual global trade deficits’ for all adjusted assessed goods’ values.

There is no “subtle difference between immediate detriments". All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should we exclude oil?
You said "Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages"

Why are some "immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs and their median wages" okay and some are not? You'll have to explain the subtle difference between "immediate detriments".

Exclusions to the assessed values of goods.

ToddsterPatriot, the purpose of the Import Certificate policy is to remedy our annual trade deficits’ detriment to our economy. Those deficits’ greatest detriment to our economy is their reduction upon jobs and our median wage.

Precious minerals are often used in place of currency and to include them within assessed value of goods would undermine the proposal’s purpose. Applying the proposal to services is very subjective and thus much less feasible. Applying the proposal to what the U.S. Congress believes to be scarce mineral materials would be an unjustifiable economic risk.
In the case of petroleum it is also an environment issue that is additionally worthy of separate consideration.

The proposal doesn’t guarantee that USA’s entire global trade deficit will be eliminated but it does guarantee elimination of our annual global trade deficits’ for all adjusted assessed goods’ values.

There is no “subtle difference between immediate detriments". All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, the purpose of the Import Certificate policy is to remedy our annual trade deficits’ detriment to our economy. Those deficits’ greatest detriment to our economy is their reduction upon jobs and our median wage.

So you've claimed. So let's stop importing oil, it's sure to increases jobs and median wages.

All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations.

Excellent! No foreign oil, starting today!

 

[Supposn]

... So you've claimed. So let's stop importing oil, it's sure to increases jobs and median wages.
All annual trade deficits are an immediate economic detriment to their nations.
Excellent! No foreign oil, starting today!

Toddster Patriot, Refer to response #458 entitled “Exclusions to the assessed values of goods”.
Assuming congress would include crude oil among their list of identified precious or scarce mineral materials, export or import of crude oil would be unaffected by this trade proposal.

Hindering global trade of any precious or scarce material integral to goods being assessed is your idea rather than mine.

Respectfully, Supposn