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

[DSGE]

Bush didn't need a BBA to balance the budget. Being a republican, surely he'd just do it automatically?

1) not really since he was a weak Republican

2) not really since it would have meant political suicide as it did for Newt. Way over your head.

But no, he turned a surplus into a deficit.

Bush was not the government. Over your head??

You claim "but power is well distributed", which is bullshit anyway

actually dear we have 3 branches of government, the people , and the press

because in 2002 republicans had a majority in both houses. If "power is well distributed" enough to somehow force Bush to enter a deficit, following that logic through, power should be well distributed enough to not allow Obama to expand the deficit.

dear, no one said it was distributed evenly!!!!! Liberals killed all 30 BBA's. Can you grasp that??

The fact that you can't grasp the implications of your own argument is... just upsetting. This is exactly why they should teach logic in school.

 

[DSGE]

as I recall you said they could end recession, restore GDP, cause full employment, with no trouble now that they have "their act together since 1980". You have a childs liberal eye view of government

If they adopted NGDP level targeting. But they're not going to do that. They're going to keep pursuing tight money.

so thats Nazi-Liberal magic bullet that will heal the world with billions in mal-investment and another Great Depression!!

"Nazi-liberal". Never thought I'd see anybody ignorant enough to try and put those two words together.

As opposed to your Nazi-conservative magic bullet, the gold standard? See, I can use inflammatory words too!

If I thought for half a second that you were capable of learning I'd explain how an NGDP target is kind of like a gold standard, except instead of targeting just M, we target MV, which means we offset changes in the velocity of money. That is, we prevent policy from being too tight/loose from changes in the demand for money. But since you already cling to a bias without understanding the underlying theory, I'll save it for another time.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Nazi-liberal". Never thought I'd see anybody ignorant enough to try and put those two words together.

why does't the illiterate read "Liberal Fascism" to see it done over 400pages?? Or merely consider that liberal has no natural limits.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny". -Jefferson

If I thought for half a second that you were capable of learning I'd explain how an NGDP target is kind of like a gold standard, except instead of targeting just M, we target MV, which means we offset changes in the velocity of money. That is, we prevent policy from being too tight/loose from changes in the demand for money. But since you already cling to a bias without understanding the underlying theory, I'll save it for another time.

I get the theory: a genius liberal dictator can understand and run the economy with mal-investments now that "they have there act together"

 

[DSGE]

If I thought for half a second that you were capable of learning I'd explain how an NGDP target is kind of like a gold standard, except instead of targeting just M, we target MV, which means we offset changes in the velocity of money. That is, we prevent policy from being too tight/loose from changes in the demand for money. But since you already cling to a bias without understanding the underlying theory, I'll save it for another time.

I get the theory: a genius liberal dictator can understand and run the economy with mal-investments now that "they have there act together"

You clearly don't. And you don't even care to try. Why the fuck don't you actually open your ears and properly understand other people's points of view? Is it that you just want to talk at people about your biases, you think you can guess their position without actually listening to them, you just want to troll, or you're just plain fucking stupid? I know what my guess is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
. Why the fuck don't you actually open your ears and properly understand other people's points of view? .

Thomas Jefferson gave us freedom from would be liberal Nazis who have a new great plan for society. He knew to give us freedom even without seeing the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin Mao.
You have seen them and still don't understand. All the Fed has done is give us depressions and recession and you like Pol Pot want just one more try to get it right! Your the great liberal genius who can finally engineer the economy for everyone. End the Fed !!!!

 

[DSGE]

[
. Why the fuck don't you actually open your ears and properly understand other people's points of view? .

Thomas Jefferson gave us freedom from would be liberal Nazis who have a new great plan for society. He knew to give us freedom even without seeing the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin Mao.
You have seen them and still don't understand. All the Fed has done is give us depressions and recession and you like Pol Pot want just one more try to get it right! Your the great liberal genius who can finally engineer the economy for everyone. End the Fed !!!!

It just occurs to me, with your inability (unwillingness) to comprehend any view that isn't yours, combined with your frequent use of idiotic slogans and catch-phrases, you likely wouldn't pass the Turing test.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
. Why the fuck don't you actually open your ears and properly understand other people's points of view? .

Thomas Jefferson gave us freedom from would be liberal Nazis who have a new great plan for society. He knew to give us freedom even without seeing the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin Mao.
You have seen them and still don't understand. All the Fed has done is give us depressions and recession and you like Pol Pot want just one more try to get it right! Your the great liberal genius who can finally engineer the economy for everyone. End the Fed !!!!

It just occurs to me, with your inability (unwillingness) to comprehend any view that isn't yours, combined with your frequent use of idiotic slogans and catch-phrases, you likely wouldn't pass the Turing test.

I do understand mal-investment, do you?

 

[Supposn]

Excerpted from the topic
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”:

Editec, free trade proponents do not accept the statement “trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs” does not mean that trade deficits solely by themselves destroys their nations’ economies. Because GDP and median wage are among, (if not the) most significant indicators of nations’ economic indicators, A nation’s economy is less robust than otherwise due to the extent of its trade deficit.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thomas Jefferson gave us freedom from would be liberal Nazis who have a new great plan for society. He knew to give us freedom even without seeing the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin Mao.
You have seen them and still don't understand. All the Fed has done is give us depressions and recession and you like Pol Pot want just one more try to get it right! Your the great liberal genius who can finally engineer the economy for everyone. End the Fed !!!!

It just occurs to me, with your inability (unwillingness) to comprehend any view that isn't yours, combined with your frequent use of idiotic slogans and catch-phrases, you likely wouldn't pass the Turing test.

I do understand mal-investment, do you?

yes mal-investment is investment not subject to capitalist discipline!

 

[Rshermr]

[
. Why the fuck don't you actually open your ears and properly understand other people's points of view? .

Thomas Jefferson gave us freedom from would be liberal Nazis who have a new great plan for society. He knew to give us freedom even without seeing the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin Mao.
You have seen them and still don't understand. All the Fed has done is give us depressions and recession and you like Pol Pot want just one more try to get it right! Your the great liberal genius who can finally engineer the economy for everyone. End the Fed !!!!

It just occurs to me, with your inability (unwillingness) to comprehend any view that isn't yours, combined with your frequent use of idiotic slogans and catch-phrases, you likely wouldn't pass the Turing test.

you have to understand that Ed is simply a tea party tool. He only takes their talking points and continuously pitches them. Ed believes what he wants to believe, and needs a superior source, in his mind, to tell him what to believe, to make him angry and so on. Then he uses the repetition method to get his desired point across. Common tea party and far right traits. They are completely incapable of discussion or rational argument. They do not mind being lied to at all, as long as it comes from the correct source. Never check their sources.

A real sad state of existence. Makes him look like an idiot frequently, but ed neither notices nor cares.

 

[Widdekind]

Excerpted from the topic
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”:

Editec, free trade proponents do not accept the statement “trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs” does not mean that trade deficits solely by themselves destroys their nations’ economies. Because GDP and median wage are among, (if not the) most significant indicators of nations’ economic indicators, A nation’s economy is less robust than otherwise due to the extent of its trade deficit.

Respectfully, Supposn

basic economic doctrine (Classic Dichotomy, neutrality of money) states that price-levels don't much matter. As long as you don't need wheelbarrows worth of money to buy bread, whether prices are "X", "half X", or "twice X" doesn't much matter.

real GDP (Y/P) and real wages (W/P) are what matter most. Cheap imports push down prices (P), improving the domestic economy, by boosting both real GDP & real wages. Domestic purchasing power cannot be reduced, by buying cheaper

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excerpted from the topic
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”:

Editec, free trade proponents do not accept the statement “trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs” does not mean that trade deficits solely by themselves destroys their nations’ economies. Because GDP and median wage are among, (if not the) most significant indicators of nations’ economic indicators, A nation’s economy is less robust than otherwise due to the extent of its trade deficit.

Respectfully, Supposn

A nation’s economy is less robust than otherwise due to the extent of its trade deficit.

We imported about $331.7 billion worth of crude oil last year.
Do you really think this portion of the deficit made our economy less robust?

 

[expat_panama]

...I perceive no logical reason for the current accounts and the capital accounts between the USA and individual nations should balance each other...

It's because that's how money works.

Americans use American money and foreigners don't. OK, I know we got exceptions but I'm talking the overwhelming majority of transactions here. Whenever you buy chocolate or coffee, the dollars you spend eventually have to be exchanged for Colombian pesos to pay the grower. Currency changers do not just sit on half a trillion dollars. They trade their dollars to people that buy stuff from Americans.

Whether we're willing to understand it or not, the payments always balance, and there's no way around it.

 

[Supposn]

Basic economic doctrine (Classic Dichotomy, neutrality of money) states that price-levels don't much matter. As long as you don't need wheelbarrows worth of money to buy bread, whether prices are "X", "half X", or "twice X" doesn't much matter.

real GDP (Y/P) and real wages (W/P) are what matter most. Cheap imports push down prices (P), improving the domestic economy, by boosting both real GDP & real wages. Domestic purchasing power cannot be reduced, by buying cheaper

Widdekind, you’re mingling the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and that of USA’s median wage. As you wrote,” Cheap imports push down prices (P)”, but trade deficits (not foreign trade itself) NEVER improves the domestic economy. It does not (as you wrote), boost both real GDP & real wages”.

On the contrary trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations GDP and thus to some extent are detrimental to the median wage.
Refer to the topic “Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”.

It is not our global trade but our trade deficits’ that are a significant net detriment to our economy. Our trade deficit's net detriment to USA's economy is greatly under-estimated by those influential within and outside of our government; (because its affect upon the median wage is proportionately a greater burden to lower income families)"?

Wage earning families benefit from cheaper imported goods but every day of every year they’re dependent upon their U.S. wages. Within an Import Certificate policy, regardless of how small the additions to imports’ prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA’s assessed imports could never exceed that of our exports. USA consumers will be able to purchase cheap, (but not the absolute cheapest) imported goods. We cannot afford the absolute cheapest.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Basic economic doctrine (Classic Dichotomy, neutrality of money) states that price-levels don't much matter. As long as you don't need wheelbarrows worth of money to buy bread, whether prices are "X", "half X", or "twice X" doesn't much matter.

real GDP (Y/P) and real wages (W/P) are what matter most. Cheap imports push down prices (P), improving the domestic economy, by boosting both real GDP & real wages. Domestic purchasing power cannot be reduced, by buying cheaper

Widdekind, you’re mingling the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and that of USA’s median wage. As you wrote,” Cheap imports push down prices (P)”, but trade deficits (not foreign trade itself) NEVER improves the domestic economy. It does not (as you wrote), boost both real GDP & real wages”.

On the contrary trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations GDP and thus to some extent are detrimental to the median wage.
Refer to the topic “Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”.

It is not our global trade but our trade deficits’ that are a significant net detriment to our economy. Our trade deficit's net detriment to USA's economy is greatly under-estimated by those influential within and outside of our government; (because its affect upon the median wage is proportionately a greater burden to lower income families)"?

Wage earning families benefit from cheaper imported goods but every day of every year they’re dependent upon their U.S. wages. Within an Import Certificate policy, regardless of how small the additions to imports’ prices due to Import Certificates, (unlike tariffs) USA’s assessed imports could never exceed that of our exports. USA consumers will be able to purchase cheap, (but not the absolute cheapest) imported goods. We cannot afford the absolute cheapest.

Respectfully, Supposn

It is not our global trade but our trade deficits’ that are a significant net detriment to our economy. Our trade deficit's net detriment to USA's economy is greatly under-estimated by those influential within and outside of our government; (because its affect upon the median wage is proportionately a greater burden to lower income families)"?

How is the trade deficit caused by our purchase of foreign oil a "significant net detriment to our economy"?

(because its affect upon the median wage is proportionately a greater burden to lower income families)

How does the oil trade deficit "affect the median wage"?

 

[Supposn]

A nation’s economy is less robust than otherwise due to the extent of its trade deficit.
We imported about $331.7 billion worth of crude oil last year.
Do you really think this portion of the deficit made our economy less robust?

ToddsterPatriot, you apparently haven’t noticed I’m a proponent of a trade policy that excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to all goods that are assessed for the purpose of that policy.
Of course I would expect that Congress would include petroleum within that list of excluded materials.

What we each spend for medical expenses reduces our wealth. We do so because we believe the alternative to no spending it would be of greater detriment to our best interests.

Similarly the answer to your question is Yes, I certainly do really think this portion of the deficit makes our economy less robust; but until we can do something to make us less dependent upon foreign petroleum, the alternative to not importing petroleum or petroleum products would be a greater detriment to our economy.

[Precious minerals such gold, platinum, gem stones are often used in place of money. If we included such materials within goods assessed values, we would be undermining the purpose of the trade proposal. Money is a convenient measure of goods’ relatively comparative values but the trade deficits’ detriment to their nations’ economies is not due to a monetary deficit; it is due to the loss of jobs and to the nations’ abilities to produce (goods)].

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

It's because that's how money works.

Americans use American money and foreigners don't. OK, I know we got exceptions but I'm talking the overwhelming majority of transactions here. Whenever you buy chocolate or coffee, the dollars you spend eventually have to be exchanged for Colombian pesos to pay the grower. Currency changers do not just sit on half a trillion dollars. They trade their dollars to people that buy stuff from Americans.

Whether we're willing to understand it or not, the payments always balance, and there's no way around it.

ExPat Panama, you’re mistaken. The definition of a nation’s global trade deficit is the values of the nation’s global imports exceed their exports. The USA has had a trade deficit of goods every year for the past half century.

That’s how trade deficits are defined. Refer to message #196.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

You all, we all prefer to believe that we are very logical.

Unfortunately most of us do not reach conclusions after extensive study. Based upon our nurture, our life experiences, our environment, and definitely what we perceive is to our own best interests, we decide upon conclusions and search for logical reasons that support the conclusions we’ve already chosen.

Romney is not the evil greedy devil and I would not without very good cause accuse anyone of being unpatriotic. Based upon his entire life experiences Romney has every reason to reconcile his own and the nation’s best interests as being one and the same. He’s unable to believe that trade deficits are detrimental to our nation’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A nation’s economy is less robust than otherwise due to the extent of its trade deficit.
We imported about $331.7 billion worth of crude oil last year.
Do you really think this portion of the deficit made our economy less robust?

ToddsterPatriot, you apparently haven’t noticed I’m a proponent of a trade policy that excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to all goods that are assessed for the purpose of that policy.
Of course I would expect that Congress would include petroleum within that list of excluded materials.

What we each spend for medical expenses reduces our wealth. We do so because we believe the alternative to no spending it would be of greater detriment to our best interests.

Similarly the answer to your question is Yes, I certainly do really think this portion of the deficit makes our economy less robust; but until we can do something to make us less dependent upon foreign petroleum, the alternative to not importing petroleum or petroleum products would be a greater detriment to our economy.

[Precious minerals such gold, platinum, gem stones are often used in place of money. If we included such materials within goods assessed values, we would be undermining the purpose of the trade proposal. Money is a convenient measure of goods’ relatively comparative values but the trade deficits’ detriment to their nations’ economies is not due to a monetary deficit; it is due to the loss of jobs and to the nations’ abilities to produce (goods)].

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes, I certainly do really think this portion of the deficit makes our economy less robust; but until we can do something to make us less dependent upon foreign petroleum, the alternative to not importing petroleum or petroleum products would be a greater detriment to our economy.

Not importing oil would be a greater detriment, but importing oil "makes our economy less robust".

This shows me your logic, and understanding of economics, is weak.

You should read some Thomas Sowell and answer his two questions.

"Compared to what?" and "At what cost?"

It would greatly improve your understanding.

 

[expat_panama]

...I perceive no logical reason for the current accounts and the capital accounts between the USA and individual nations should balance each other...

It's because that's how money works.

Americans use American money and foreigners don't. OK, I know we got exceptions but I'm talking the overwhelming majority of transactions here. Whenever you buy chocolate or coffee, the dollars you spend eventually have to be exchanged for Colombian pesos to pay the grower. Currency changers do not just sit on half a trillion dollars. They trade their dollars to people that buy stuff from Americans.

Whether we're willing to understand it or not, the payments always balance, and there's no way around it.

ExPat Panama, you’re mistaken. The definition of a nation’s global trade deficit is the values of the nation’s global imports exceed their exports. The USA has had a trade deficit of goods every year for the past half century...

When I look at official historical records I get the impression that you're mistaken, but whether you're mistaken or not is not important and off topic. We're talking about the so-called 'trade deficit' which's defined any way people want. They usually end up using the BEA's records on how much money's spent on US exports and imports of goods'n'services--

--and it was positive 36 years ago, and that it gets bigger when the economy gets better.
.