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

[bripat9643]

This scheme certainly is nothing more than a glorified quota system. It limits imports based on quantity. That's a quota. It doesn't matter whether you use some complicated formula to determine what that quantity is.

Calling it "free market" is the ultimate joke. The free market means "free." That is, the government doesn't interfere. This is a scheme involving massive government interference. There's nothing "market" about it.

BriPat9643, within the transferable Import Certificates proposal, no government or entities (other than the importers themselves), determines the total assessed values, of goods each importer may introduce into our nation;[i.e. there’s no quota enforced upon importers of goods into the USA].

the fact that some complex formula is used rather than simple number is irrelevant. It's a limit on the number of units that can be imported. In other words, it's a quota.



In other words some arbitrary government regulation limits the amount they can import. It's a quota.



Immaterial. Your regulation places a limit on imports. In other words, it's a quota.



It is a quota system. All your rhetorical dancing doesn't change the facts. Any economist who isn't a complete hack would describe it as a quota.



The effect is exactly the same as a quota because that's what it is: a quota.

How did you ever reach the conclusion that this proposal could or would “force foreigners to buy stuff for which there may be no demand”?

How are they going to get "IC's" if not by buying stuff that otherwise wouldn't normally sell on the open market? Isn't that the whole point of your quota system, to force foreigners to buy American products they don't really want?

BriPat9643, regardless of your opinion this proposal’s certainly pure free enterprise that’s market rather than government driven. Any competent economist that understands the dictionary’s definition of “quota” would also understand that this proposal is NOT a quota system.

The purpose of an Import Certificate system is to eliminate USA’s trade deficit of assessed goods in a market rather than a government driven manner that will increase USA’s GDP and indirectly increase our median wage.

I regret that you do not share my confidence in entrepreneurs functioning within our competitive markets. You prefer to continue enduring USA and foreign governments’ negotiations and manipulations of USA’s global trade. I’m generally opposed to government’s’ choosing winners or losers.

I’m a proponent of a unilateral trade policy; all governments’ are entitled to determine what enters their borders but we should not discriminate between foreign nations and similarly we should defend USA from foreign nations’ treating our products in a lesser manner than their imports from other nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[DSGE]

This scheme certainly is nothing more than a glorified quota system. It limits imports based on quantity. That's a quota. It doesn't matter whether you use some complicated formula to determine what that quantity is.

Yep. And the quota is very explicit: You're only allowed to import as much as has been exported. If GDP = C + I + G + X - M, your import quota is X.

 

[expat_panama]

...When U.S. purchasers perceiving their own individual benefits chose to purchase imported products their transaction reduces their nations’ GDPs. Trade surpluses increase their nations’ GDPs.

I've explained already how they don't. Instead of continuing to ramble, why don't you quote and address the points I made about how it doesn't lower GDP.

What we're clarifying is that the thread's aim isn't promoting economic growth but rather for promoting the growth of the state.

Economics seems to have been a ploy from the beginning because we've pointed out first that the formula may model the GDP but it can't control it, and second that historically GDP's increase with growing 'trade deficits'. Irrelevant; economics was a smokescreen. Leftist statists often use bogus economic mumbo-jumbo as a distraction while expanding state control over the totality of our lives.

This is wrong; it's a mechanism that's historically led to unspeakable suffering and death to many tens of millions of innocents.

 

[DSGE]

[What we're clarifying is that the thread's aim isn't promoting economic growth but rather for promoting the growth of the state.

Well I don't know about that. I think this person honestly believes that deficits are detrimental to economic growth and their faith in the ability of the state to have significant positive effects is incidental.

Economics seems to have been a ploy from the beginning because we've pointed out first that the formula may model the GDP but it can't control it, and second that historically GDP's increase with growing 'trade deficits'. Irrelevant; economics was a smokescreen. Leftist statists often use bogus economic mumbo-jumbo as a distraction while expanding state control over the totality of our lives.

I'd disagree with you there. Economics is a science. If academic papers contain anything other than rigorous and impartial analysis then the person who published it will be denounced by the rest of the academic community. As it turns out, economics is reasonably anti-statist. Ask anybody on the street if they think minimum wage is a good idea and they'll say "Of course. We want poor people to be guaranteed a minimum standard of living". Ask an economist and they'll most certainly say "It's not a good idea. All it serves to do is create unemployment among the very people you're trying to help.". Economics really only makes room for the government in a few places: enforcement of property rights and laws; administering monetary policy; correcting major market failures assuming it doesn't create larger government failures; provision of public goods like defence.

 

[editec]

[What we're clarifying is that the thread's aim isn't promoting economic growth but rather for promoting the growth of the state.

Well I don't know about that. I think this person honestly believes that deficits are detrimental to economic growth and their faith in the ability of the state to have significant positive effects is incidental.

Economics seems to have been a ploy from the beginning because we've pointed out first that the formula may model the GDP but it can't control it, and second that historically GDP's increase with growing 'trade deficits'. Irrelevant; economics was a smokescreen. Leftist statists often use bogus economic mumbo-jumbo as a distraction while expanding state control over the totality of our lives.

I'd disagree with you there. Economics is a science. If academic papers contain anything other than rigorous and impartial analysis then the person who published it will be denounced by the rest of the academic community. As it turns out, economics is reasonably anti-statist. Ask anybody on the street if they think minimum wage is a good idea and they'll say "Of course. We want poor people to be guaranteed a minimum standard of living". Ask an economist and they'll most certainly say "It's not a good idea. All it serves to do is create unemployment among the very people you're trying to help.". Economics really only makes room for the government in a few places: enforcement of property rights and laws; administering monetary policy; correcting major market failures assuming it doesn't create larger government failures; provision of public goods like defence.

Economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE, not a hard science.

What your posts suggests you think you KNOW about economics is fraught with confusion.

For example?

Ask an economist and they'll most certainly say "It's not a good idea.

They will, huh?

Go read some books, lad.

You're GUESSING

 

[DSGE]

Economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE, not a hard science.

Don't know what that means to you. Yes, you can't run randomised controlled trials; but that's not what makes a science is it? In every other respect it's methodologically identical to physics.

What your posts suggests you think you KNOW about economics is fraught with confusion.

Guess that degree was a waste of time then.

For example?

Ask an economist and they'll most certainly say "It's not a good idea.

They will, huh?

Go read some books, lad.

You're GUESSING

Well clearly economists would give a more nuanced version; I was paraphrasing so as not to bore everybody. An economists answer would be: "In a competitive market, setting a price floor (minimum wage) above the competitive equilibrium will clearly lower employment. However, if labour markets exhibit a degree of monopsonistic competition then a minimum wage could in fact raise both wages and employment. So far available evidence (link below) has found no positive employment effects of a minimum wage, but has found some, though sometimes not statistically significant, negative employment effects. This would suggest that the minimum wage has so far been set around, but maybe slightly above, the market competitive equilibrium."

www.nber.org/papers/w12663

The short answer is: "It's not a great idea because for it to actually have an real effects it has to be set high, but if you set it high it creates unemployment and harms the people you're trying to help. If you want to help these people focus on the Earned Income Tax Credit rather than a minimum wage".

 

[editec]

Yes, you can't run randomised controlled trials; but that's not what makes a science is it? In every other respect it's methodologically identical to physics.

Sport if oner cannot use scientifric reductionism to isolate what is being tested from the environment, then one cannot USE scientfic method to test one's hypothesis

Economics is an ART, not a SCIENCE (as we use those terms today, at least. The word science used to mean something very different than it does today).


But scientirfic method demands that one can study phenonema in cases where "all else being equal".

THAT is no more possible in MACRO economics than it is to do in history.

It is, possible, one supposes, in microeconomic studies, but even that is, I believe, somewhat dubious in most cases.

All the econometrics in the world of MACROeconomics does not change the fact that no SCIENTIFIC TESTING is possible

 

[DSGE]

Yes, you can't run randomised controlled trials; but that's not what makes a science is it? In every other respect it's methodologically identical to physics.

Sport if oner cannot use scientifric reductionism to isolate what is being tested from the environment, then one cannot USE scientfic method to test one's hypothesis

Economics is an ART, not a SCIENCE (as we use those terms today, at least. The word science used to mean something very different than it does today).


But scientirfic method demands that one can study phenonema in cases where "all else being equal".

THAT is no more possible in MACRO economics than it is to do in history.

It is, possible, one supposes, in microeconomic studies, but even that is, I believe, somewhat dubious in most cases.

All the econometrics in the world of MACROeconomics does not change the fact that no SCIENTIFIC TESTING is possible

There's extensive testing. The problem, as mentioned before, is that we're unable to easily conduct randomised controlled trials. So that's what econometrics is for; for finding sophisticated ways to determine a parameter "all else being equal". The process of discovery is slower than in say, physics, since we can't easily make some RCTs, but the methodology is otherwise the same.

 

[expat_panama]

...Leftist statists often use bogus economic mumbo-jumbo as a distraction while expanding state control over the totality of our lives.

I'd disagree with you there. Economics is a science...

So what? Medicine is a science and leftist statists use bogus medical mumbo-jumbo as a distraction while expanding state control over the totality of our lives. Same with Biology and Mathematics.

We know that there's no need to reduce the so-called 'trade deficit' and that the purported advantages are bogus. What I'm saying is that our exhaustion of the facts shows that the motivation here is apparently not economic growth but rather state growth. Some argue that no one can ever determine with certainty the thoughts hidden in the hearts and minds of others, but I'd argue that every day we can and must identify others' thinking to work in say, business and government --or especially in a court of law where we're forced to determine things like 'premeditation'.

 

[DSGE]

So what? Medicine is a science and leftist statists use bogus medical mumbo-jumbo as a distraction while expanding state control over the totality of our lives. Same with Biology and Mathematics.

I was referring more to the "Economics has been a ploy from the start" part. I understand that people can misrepresent just about anything to "justify" their bias.

We know that there's no need to reduce the so-called 'trade deficit' and that the purported advantages are bogus. What I'm saying is that our exhaustion of the facts shows that the motivation here is apparently not economic growth but rather state growth. Some argue that no one can ever determine with certainty the thoughts hidden in the hearts and minds of others, but I'd argue that every day we can and must identify others' thinking to work in say, business and government --or especially in a court of law where we're forced to determine things like 'premeditation'.

I don't know, man. Because this thing doesn't affect the size of the government or expand its powers or anything. It's just the one regulation saying trade must be balanced. It feels to me more like they just aren't understanding the facts being presented to them.

 

[editec]

Yes, you can't run randomised controlled trials; but that's not what makes a science is it? In every other respect it's methodologically identical to physics.

Sport if oner cannot use scientifric reductionism to isolate what is being tested from the environment, then one cannot USE scientfic method to test one's hypothesis

Economics is an ART, not a SCIENCE (as we use those terms today, at least. The word science used to mean something very different than it does today).


But scientirfic method demands that one can study phenonema in cases where "all else being equal".

THAT is no more possible in MACRO economics than it is to do in history.

It is, possible, one supposes, in microeconomic studies, but even that is, I believe, somewhat dubious in most cases.

All the econometrics in the world of MACROeconomics does not change the fact that no SCIENTIFIC TESTING is possible

There's extensive testing. The problem, as mentioned before, is that we're unable to easily conduct randomised controlled trials. So that's what econometrics is for; for finding sophisticated ways to determine a parameter "all else being equal". The process of discovery is slower than in say, physics, since we can't easily make some RCTs, but the methodology is otherwise the same.

Oh my god, don't you get it?

What hard scientist has to deal with the problem of having an experiement where the test subjects will react and change behaviors during to the test itself?

THAT is the problem that macroeconmists must face.

That is exactly why nobody can safely predict the consequences of changes in economic circumstance, too.

If marcoeconomies acted remotely like inantimate objects, we would probably have a perfect economic system.

Why?

Because we could with scientific precision accurately predict what the maro economy would do when change was imposed upon it.

Buty that is not how macroconomies work. The PEOPLE react to changes that occur and then they react to the changes they have3 made and they react again and again without stop.

That is NOT something one can isolate in a clinical trial, nor is is something that one can can EVER duplicate, either.

Every moment the economy is a CONSTANTLY changing test subject. And worse, no economic model can every remotely begin to truly describe the economy, either.

Economics is an ART that can benefit from econometrics, but as it their value as a predictor of the maarco?

Well, can you point me to one economist who has ever gotten it entirely right over and over again?

No, you cannot.

And the reason y9ou cannot is because it is not possible, not because those economists are dumb or stupid, but because the nature of the subject DEFIES scientirfic method that works so very well with INANTIMATE OBJECTS.

 

[DSGE]

Sport if oner cannot use scientifric reductionism to isolate what is being tested from the environment, then one cannot USE scientfic method to test one's hypothesis

Economics is an ART, not a SCIENCE (as we use those terms today, at least. The word science used to mean something very different than it does today).


But scientirfic method demands that one can study phenonema in cases where "all else being equal".

THAT is no more possible in MACRO economics than it is to do in history.

It is, possible, one supposes, in microeconomic studies, but even that is, I believe, somewhat dubious in most cases.

All the econometrics in the world of MACROeconomics does not change the fact that no SCIENTIFIC TESTING is possible

There's extensive testing. The problem, as mentioned before, is that we're unable to easily conduct randomised controlled trials. So that's what econometrics is for; for finding sophisticated ways to determine a parameter "all else being equal". The process of discovery is slower than in say, physics, since we can't easily make some RCTs, but the methodology is otherwise the same.

Oh my god, don't you get it?

What hard scientist has to deal with the problem of having an experiement where the test subjects will react and change behaviors during to the test itself?

Well there's this sort of stuff. Stuff where deterministic models have to be thrown out the window in favour of stochastic ones.

That is exactly why nobody can safely predict the consequences of changes in economic circumstance, too.

If marcoeconomies acted remotely like inantimate objects, we would probably have a perfect economic system.

Why?

Because we could with scientific precision accurately predict what the maro economy would do when change was imposed upon it.

Buty that is not how macroconomies work. The PEOPLE react to changes that occur and then they react to the changes they have3 made and they react again and again without stop.

That is NOT something one can isolate in a clinical trial, nor is is something that one can can EVER duplicate, either.

Every moment the economy is a CONSTANTLY changing test subject. And worse, no economic model can every remotely begin to truly describe the economy, either.

Economics is an ART that can benefit from econometrics, but as it their value as a predictor of the maarco?

Well, can you point me to one economist who has ever gotten it entirely right over and over again?

No, you cannot.

And the reason y9ou cannot is because it is not possible, not because those economists are dumb or stupid, but because the nature of the subject DEFIES scientirfic method that works so very well with INANTIMATE OBJECTS.

You seem to be conflating science - the ability to explain phenomena with testable hypotheses - with precise forecasting. The fact that economic models are subject to rigorous statistical testing makes it a science. The fact that it can't make very precise quantitative predictions doesn't exclude it from being a science any more than meteorology.

Oh PS: If you could stop being so condescending that'd be just great.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yep. And the quota is very explicit: You're only allowed to import as much as has been exported. If GDP = C + I + G + X - M, your import quota is X.

who needs a quota? If you buy a Toyota with dollars the Japanese then have the dollars, and the dollars can only be spent in the USA; so exports automatically = imports, unless they burn the dollars.

If they had no intention of spending the currency they earned they could sell a new Toyota to each man woman and child in Africa.

Buffet is just a silly liberal.

 

[DSGE]

Yep. And the quota is very explicit: You're only allowed to import as much as has been exported. If GDP = C + I + G + X - M, your import quota is X.

who needs a quota? If you buy a Toyota with dollars the Japanese then have the dollars, and the dollars can only be spent in the USA; so exports automatically = imports, unless they burn the dollars.

Not quite. If that were true then there would never be a trade deficit or surplus! All trade would always be balanced. The money does come back into the country though, but through the capital account. So the the Current account + Capital account = 0 (ie is always balanced).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not quite. If that were true then there would never be a trade deficit or surplus! All trade would always be balanced. The money does come back into the country though, but through the capital account. So the the Current account + Capital account = 0 (ie is always balanced).

Yes trade is always balanced in the absence of idiotic liberal interference. Republicans have wanted a Balanced Budget Amendment since Jefferson. That way the Japanese would have to buy our goods( and create jobs here) rather than buy our liberal debt.

 

[DSGE]

Not quite. If that were true then there would never be a trade deficit or surplus! All trade would always be balanced. The money does come back into the country though, but through the capital account. So the the Current account + Capital account = 0 (ie is always balanced).

Yes trade is always balanced in the absence of idiotic liberal interference.

.... What are you talking about?

Republicans have wanted a Balanced Budget Amendment since Jefferson. That way the Japanese would have to buy our goods( and create jobs here) rather than buy our liberal debt.

Oh okay. So you don't actually have anything constructive to say, you're just having a good time flaming liberals. Great.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]

Oh okay. So you don't actually have anything constructive to say, you're just having a good time flaming liberals. Great.

why try to change the subject and hope no one will notice? why not try to say why you disagree, admit you can't, or ask questions.

 

[DSGE]

]

Oh okay. So you don't actually have anything constructive to say, you're just having a good time flaming liberals. Great.

why try to change the subject and hope no one will notice? why not try to say why you disagree, admit you can't, or ask questions.

What am I supposed to ask? I said before, you were slightly off; exports wouldn't automatically equal imports, but the money from importing would come back into the economy through the capital account; so running a current account deficit would always mean running an equally sized capital account surplus.

Then you start saying same garbage about "trade would be balanced if it weren't for idiotic liberal interference". I asked you what you were talking about. What on earth is that supposed to mean?!

Then you rambled on with some more junk about balanced budgets, which was a complete segue, and further insulted liberals. When did liberalism ever enter into this discussion? It has no relevance to the topic at hand. If you're gonna be constructive, I'm happy to keep talking to you. If you're gonna keep flaming, then shut the fuck up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then you rambled on with some more junk about balanced budgets, which was a complete segue,

If we had a Republican Balanced Budget Amendment the Japanese and Chinese would have no American debt to buy, instead they would have to buy our Chevrolets or not trade with us. Got it now? E=I if liberals stay out of the way.

 

[DSGE]

Then you rambled on with some more junk about balanced budgets, which was a complete segue,

If we had a Republican Balanced Budget Amendment the Japanese and Chinese would have no American debt to buy, instead they would have to buy our Chevrolets or not trade with us. Got it now? E=I if liberals stay out of the way.

A balanced budget has nothing to do with the balance of trade. Absolutely nothing to do with it. Think about it: In a closed economy (one with no trade) can the government still run a budget deficit? Yes. They sell bonds to the domestic public. In an economy with a balanced budget, can we still run a current account deficit? Yes. The public borrows internationally to fund consumption and investment.

They are unrelated!

On top of which, who cares if there's a current account deficit? There's no cause to have E equal I!