The Trade Deficit Isn’t a Scorecard, and Cutting It Won’t Make America Great Again

[TNHarley]

We get less rich, so third world shit holes could get less poor
Go us! Because we care! LMFAO

 

[Supposn]

We get less rich, so third world shit holes could get less poor
Go us! Because we care! LMFAO

TNHarley, if the advantage to a commercial enterprise is not a competitive advantage, it is of little or no real advantage to the individual enterprise.
I’m opposed to an altruistic trade policy that’s of advantage to nations unable or unwilling to better compensate their workers but drags upon USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and median-wage.

After WW2 our Marshall Plan was funded from our entire federal budget; itseconomic burden WASN’T almost entirely upon USA’s employees, their dependents and any USA enterprises that may have been more dependent upon USA wage levels.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The proposed trade policy described within Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” is substantially market rather than government driven

right, as a typical liberal you want a huge tax on imports to impoverish Americans and cripple or protect our industries!! You should be ashamed.

 

[Stephanie]

I don't think anyone, including Donald Trump is claiming that reducing the trade deficit alone will fix everything. It's just one of a number of things that needs to be corrected. The argument from the left is always to attack and idea or proposal as ineffective because it doesn't solve all related problems. We see that argument all the time here.

thank you. and it's from the NYslimes you know it has to be truth, the whole truth and nothing but. pfeesh

 

[Supposn]

. The proposed trade policy described within Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” is substantially market rather than government driven

right, as a typical liberal you want a huge tax on imports to impoverish Americans and cripple or protect our industries!! You should be ashamed.

Edward Baiamonte, Wikipedia’s Import Certificates” article’s description of ”Import Certificates” is certainly not a draft so explicit as to be ready for presentation and voted upon by the entire legislative chambers, but it is certainly (to no less than moderately) explicit. There’s sufficient “meat” for you to chew on if you wanted to explicitly explain the proposal’s alleged faults.

You have never been able to logically point out any specific fault and argue the logic of your case. You’re unable to explain the reasoning of your logic or there is no logical reasoning for your conclusions?


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Slade3200]

I don't think anyone, including Donald Trump is claiming that reducing the trade deficit alone will fix everything. It's just one of a number of things that needs to be corrected. The argument from the left is always to attack and idea or proposal as ineffective because it doesn't solve all related problems. We see that argument all the time here.

Why the hell do you want to reduce the trade deficit? Other countries are literally sending us millions of cars, and other products for cheap prices, and all we're doing is marking up some accounts. We aren't sacrificing anything!

Thanks for the post. Interesting article. My fear is the long term effects of the trade deficit... As outlined in the article the country with the surplus will often invest back to the deficit country. We see this with China as they buy treasury bonds and they have been buying a ton of real estate and domestic businesses. We are getting cheap consumable goods and they are getting our real estate and businesses. Furthermore our manufacturing and export industries are diminishing. If things continue, what prevents us from being owned by China and dependent on foreign trade for our consumable goods?

 

[Supposn]

I don't think anyone, including Donald Trump is claiming that reducing the trade deficit alone will fix everything. It's just one of a number of things that needs to be corrected. The argument from the left is always to attack and idea or proposal as ineffective because it doesn't solve all related problems. We see that argument all the time here.

S.J., some believe USA could better negotiate our international agreements while others contend our foreign trade’s detriments to our nation’s economy are the consequences of USA’s extremely poor negotiating practices. Trump and Sanders were among those remainders.
Trump believes himself to be the most superior of all negotiators. I do not suppose you can negotiate anyone to act contrary to what they believe to be in their best interests.



Negotiation will not induce people to agree to what they perceive to be contrary to their best interests. Within USA’s current environment of trade laws and policies. what’s to the best financial interests of individual persons and enterprises engaged in USA’s foreign trade are in aggregate contrary to our nation’s economic interests. Change the laws and regulations will be reflected by changes in what individuals will perceive to be their own best interests.



I’m among those that contending USA should generally refrain from entering international trade agreements with primarily economic rather than other, (such as promoting language and measurement standardization or mutual environmental protection) purposes. We’re proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. It’s a UNILATERAL, (i.e. not negotiated internationally), substantially market driven policy for conducting its nation’s international trade.

USA has no trade treaties; qualifications of agreements designated as international treaties are explicit within the U.S. Constitution and thus have particularly high legal status within federal law.



All USA international trade agreements have provisions for modifications and (if modification cannot be accomplished, participants upon providing proper notice of their intentions), may terminating their participation within those agreements.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[ogibillm]

So, less jobs in the United States is a good thing? I don't think so.

trade deficits don't tell the story of jobs, and even jobs don't tell the story of economic benefit

 

[Supposn]

So, less jobs in the United States is a good thing? I don't think so.

trade deficits don't tell the story of jobs, and even jobs don't tell the story of economic benefit

Ogibillm, balances of trade are not the entire determiners of their nations’ gross domestic products. CERTAINLY trade surpluses contribute and a trade deficits drag upon their nations’ GDPs.
No creditable economist will deny that trade deficits do drag upon their nation’s GDP.

Nations’ GDPs their numbers of jobs and their job wages’ purchasing powers all affect and reflect upon each other to a significant extent. Why would you believe otherwise?

Those denying the extent of nations’ chronic annual trade deficits’ detriment to their own economies are reduced to claiming that due to foreign investments induced by international trade, trade deficits are economically net benign; some event claim they’re economically desirable.

These apologists for trade deficits are less than explicit when asked why more foreign investment should be attracted by trade deficits rather than trade surpluses or by the condition of the nation’s entire economy (as reflected by its per-capita GDP) rather than its trade balance or trade volumes?

I accept the notion of healthier economies attracting more (foreign and domestic) investment. I naively consider that as axiomatic.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Ogibillm, I’m a populist and gauge an economy to the extent that it provides its population with the greater and sustainable living standards. For want of a more superior index, I judge an economy that achieves the highest sustainable median wage’s purchasing power as to be the superior economy.

Trade deficits drag upon their nation’s GDP and particularly reduces numbers of jobs, which in turn are a drag upon jobs wage scales and purchasing powers.


Respectfully, Supposn