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

[expat_panama]

We complain about the US government sudsidues that would increase jobs in the USA because that is creeping socialism...

No, I complain about subsidies that involve your stealing my money for funding them. Hey, if you want to pay for those goofy subsidies with your own money then go right ahead, that's your business. Keep your hands out of my pockets.

...we enjoy the Chinese government's various subsidies...

You're not running China and I'm not running China. Chinese subsidies are not a problem because they're not things that we can 'solve', they're in fact what's called a situation, something that we deal with.

...communist enslavment is okay with us when it comes to hiring people to make our consumer goods offshore? Got it!

What ever you've gotten I hope you get over it because that post didn't make sense. Please translate, you're saying what, you want tariffs on Chinese imports?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But we enjoy the Chinese government's various subsidies that increase jobs in Communist China?

what planet have you been on??? China switched to capitalism 30 years ago and it instantly transformed the country!!!

U.S.'s Startup Myth; China's 'Ford Moment': Commentary Review ...
Jul 3, 2010... may have to go Communist. It's tempting to wonder which way China will go. ... So far, China has taken the first path, going more the way of capitalism than Communism. ... Krugman or Paulson: Who You Gonna Bet On? ...

www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-03/u-s-s-startup-my... - Similar

The Myth of Asia's Miracle
Paul Krugman* ... Communist growth rates were certainly impressive, but not magical. ..... unfair: one is weighing down the buoyant performance of Chinese capitalism with the leaden performance of Chinese socialism. ... Even a modest slowing in China's growth will change the geopolitical outlook substantially. ...

web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html - Similar

or you might read "Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics"

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, oh so very very slow.

 

[Supposn]

We complain about the US government sudsidues that would increase jobs in the USA because that is creeping socialism...

No, I complain about subsidies that involve your stealing my money for funding them. Hey, if you want to pay for those goofy subsidies with your own money then go right ahead, that's your business. Keep your hands out of my pockets.

Expat_Panama, the Import Certificate trade proposal would be ENTIRELY net funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods (as assessed in the USA).

To the extent that USA purchasers of foreign goods are the cause of our trade deficit, it’s reasonable that they should fund its remedy.

You determine how much you want to spend for foreign goods, and you would be additionally charged in a similar proportion. How much more, (the rate of) additional charge would be determined by the market.
The net of what you have chosen to pay will in turn be an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports.

No one will twist your arm to purchase more or less foreign goods.
Under the U.S. constitution it is not your inalienable right to purchase any goods without an additional cost.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

...No one will twist your arm to purchase more or less foreign goods...

If that were true, why the certificates?

 

[Supposn]

...No one will twist your arm to purchase more or less foreign goods...

If that were true, why the certificates?

Expat_Panama, to prevent USA’s trade deficit of assessed goods which is detrimental to our GDP and median wage; but no one is requiring you to buy anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We complain about the US government sudsidues that would increase jobs in the USA because that is creeping socialism...

No, I complain about subsidies that involve your stealing my money for funding them. Hey, if you want to pay for those goofy subsidies with your own money then go right ahead, that's your business. Keep your hands out of my pockets.

Expat_Panama, the Import Certificate trade proposal would be ENTIRELY net funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods (as assessed in the USA).

To the extent that USA purchasers of foreign goods are the cause of our trade deficit, it’s reasonable that they should fund its remedy.

You determine how much you want to spend for foreign goods, and you would be additionally charged in a similar proportion. How much more, (the rate of) additional charge would be determined by the market.
The net of what you have chosen to pay will in turn be an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports.

No one will twist your arm to purchase more or less foreign goods.
Under the U.S. constitution it is not your inalienable right to purchase any goods without an additional cost.

Respectfully, Supposn

To the extent that USA purchasers of foreign goods are the cause of our trade deficit, it’s reasonable that they should fund its remedy.

Yes, Americans are too free to buy foreign goods.
We must raise the price of these foreign goods to reduce that freedom.
Americans will only buy as much as Supposn wants them to, because.......because that's how he feels!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...No one will twist your arm to purchase more or less foreign goods...

If that were true, why the certificates?

Expat_Panama, to prevent USA’s trade deficit of assessed goods which is detrimental to our GDP and median wage; but no one is requiring you to buy anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

but no one is requiring you to buy anything.

Exactly! Some of Obama's people want to raise the price of gasoline to $10 per gallon.
Because they feel Americans use too much of the stuff. How dare they!
We will raise the price, but no one is requiring you to buy it.
At $10, no one is twisting your arm.

 

[Supposn]

...................Americans will only buy as much as Supposn wants them to, because.......because that's how he feels!

Toddster Patriot, because trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP, the median wage and creation of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

​

... trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP ...

That is in fact how it happens in a make believe economy. In real life of course the GDP goes up when the 'so-called' trade deficit increases. Don't get me wrong, fantasies can be a lot of fun. Right now I'm playing--

--and other times I dream about--

Real life we face facts. Higher so-called 'trade deficit' = more GDP growth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP, the median wage and creation of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Of course real trade deficits are impossible. If you spend $100 on Chinese goods they then have $100 US dollars that they must spend in the USA thus eliminating the deficit.

If there is a "deficit" the solution is always to make better cheaper stuff; not to use liberal programs to make your inferior liberal union junk sell. Liberals programs to sell American union junk just make us less and less competitive or less and less world class versus those who compete.

 

[Supposn]

trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP, the median wage and creation of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Of course real trade deficits are impossible. If you spend $100 on Chinese goods they then have $100 US dollars that they must spend in the USA thus eliminating the deficit........

Edward Baiamonte, Trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations’ GDPs. USA purchasers can’t spend their same dollars twice.

All expenditures are either transfers of wealth or purchases of goods or service products. When money’s are eventually derived from wealth transactions, they’re additional wealth transactions which in their turn can only be spent for products or transfers of wealth.

Trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations’ GDPs. USA purchasers can’t spend their same dollars twice. The expenditures for imported products are the denial of expenditures for domestic products.

You are equating a nation’s balance of trade, (i.e. the current account) which is integral to the calculation of GDP, with the nation’s global transfers of wealth, (i.e. the balance of payments account) which is not a factor within the GDP formula.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs. What you’ve been describing is nations’ balance of payments accounts.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...................Americans will only buy as much as Supposn wants them to, because.......because that's how he feels!

Toddster Patriot, because trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP, the median wage and creation of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, because trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP

You can keep saying it and I'll keep proving you wrong.

If you stopped all oil imports into the US, you would cut the trade deficit immediately.
You would also triple, at least, the price of oil and crush our economy.
What would that do to median wages and jobs?

 

[Rshermr]

...................Americans will only buy as much as Supposn wants them to, because.......because that's how he feels!

Toddster Patriot, because trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP, the median wage and creation of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, because trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP

You can keep saying it and I'll keep proving you wrong.

If you stopped all oil imports into the US, you would cut the trade deficit immediately.
You would also triple, at least, the price of oil and crush our economy.
What would that do to median wages and jobs?

Jesus, todd. That was a stupid post. If you stay within the realm of sanity, then Suposin is correct. If you take exports as a whole, you are always better off to have more exports than imports. Unless, of course, you take a bat shit crazy idea like stopping all oil imports immediately.
However, if you could do something else that we can not do, equally as impossible as what you suggest, then if you could increase alternative fuel production immediately enough to make up for oil imports,and THEN stop oil imports, that would be a really good thing. So, you may want to consider working on the increasing alternative fuel sources and in decreasing fuel consumption, that would be a great thing. Unless you are a con, and prefer to simply drill, baby, drill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot, because trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP, the median wage and creation of jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, because trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP

You can keep saying it and I'll keep proving you wrong.

If you stopped all oil imports into the US, you would cut the trade deficit immediately.
You would also triple, at least, the price of oil and crush our economy.
What would that do to median wages and jobs?

Jesus, todd. That was a stupid post. If you stay within the realm of sanity, then Suposin is correct. If you take exports as a whole, you are always better off to have more exports than imports. Unless, of course, you take a bat shit crazy idea like stopping all oil imports immediately.
However, if you could do something else that we can not do, equally as impossible as what you suggest, then if you could increase alternative fuel production immediately enough to make up for oil imports,and THEN stop oil imports, that would be a really good thing. So, you may want to consider working on the increasing alternative fuel sources and in decreasing fuel consumption, that would be a great thing. Unless you are a con, and prefer to simply drill, baby, drill.

If you stay within the realm of sanity, then Suposin is correct.

His claim was absolute, trade deficits are detrimental to GDP. I showed he was wrong.

 

[Supposn]

.................If you stopped all oil imports into the US, you would cut the trade deficit immediately.
You would also triple, at least, the price of oil and crush our economy.
What would that do to median wages and jobs?

Toddster Patriot, the IMMEDIATE result of trade deficits’ are to reduce their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.

If a developing nation ran trade deficit’s due to importing production enabling products, the immediate consequence of those annual trade deficits would be to reduce that nation’s annual GDPs more than otherwise.
It’s to be hoped that the additional production due to earlier year’s importing of production enabling products would eventually bear fruit; i.e. increasing the nation’s annual GDPs more than otherwise while significantly reducing, (if not completely preventing) future trade deficits.

This scenario is not the case of the USA. Our trade deficits are generally for consumption rather than to enable increased production.

This proposed trade policy excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. I expect that crude oil would be among those minerals. Energy's a seperate USA issue and requires its own remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.................If you stopped all oil imports into the US, you would cut the trade deficit immediately.
You would also triple, at least, the price of oil and crush our economy.
What would that do to median wages and jobs?

Toddster Patriot, the IMMEDIATE result of trade deficits’ are to reduce their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.

If a developing nation ran trade deficit’s due to importing production enabling products, the immediate consequence of those annual trade deficits would be to reduce that nation’s annual GDPs more than otherwise.
It’s to be hoped that the additional production due to earlier year’s importing of production enabling products would eventually bear fruit; i.e. increasing the nation’s annual GDPs more than otherwise while significantly reducing, (if not completely preventing) future trade deficits.

This scenario is not the case of the USA. Our trade deficits are generally for consumption rather than to enable increased production.

This proposed trade policy excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. I expect that crude oil would be among those minerals. Energy a seperate USA issue and requires its own remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, the IMMEDIATE result of trade deficits’ are to reduce their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.

Show me how cutting out all oil imports increases our GDP.
Use current numbers.

 

[Supposn]

.................This proposed trade policy excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. I expect that crude oil would be among those minerals. Energy's a seperate USA issue and requires its own remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Show me how cutting out all oil imports increases our GDP.
Use current numbers.

Toddster Patriot, you can’t read or you choose to ignore any information that’s contrary to your political position?

This trade policy, to the extent that specifically listed scarce or precious minerals are integral to globally traded goods, excludes the values of those mineral materials from global traded goods' assessed values.

In that case this proposal would have absolutely no affect upon the global trade petroleum itself. You’re arguing against a position that I never advocated.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.................This proposed trade policy excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the goods being assessed. I expect that crude oil would be among those minerals. Energy's a seperate USA issue and requires its own remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Show me how cutting out all oil imports increases our GDP.
Use current numbers.

Toddster Patriot, you can’t read or you choose to ignore any information that’s contrary to your political position?

This trade policy, to the extent that specifically listed scarce or precious minerals are integral to globally traded goods, excludes the values of those mineral materials from global traded goods' assessed values.

In that case this proposal would have absolutely no affect upon the global trade petroleum itself. You’re arguing against a position that I never advocated.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, you can’t read or you choose to ignore any information that’s contrary to your political position?

My political position or the political position of your import certificate suggestion has nothing to do with the fact that some imports help us grow our GDP.

You can't take our current output numbers, including oil imports, and recalculate them assuming no oil imports? I predict if you do, you'll see GDP remains unchanged.

 

[Supposn]

My political position or the political position of your import certificate suggestion has nothing to do with the fact that some imports help us grow our GDP.

You can't take our current output numbers, including oil imports, and recalculate them assuming no oil imports? I predict if you do, you'll see GDP remains unchanged.

Toddster Patriot, you wrote “You can't take our current output numbers, including oil imports, and recalculate them assuming no oil imports”? Why would we want to do so? What’s the significance of the resulting statistic?

You state that if we eliminated petroleum imports, (in any form?), from our globally aggregate imports, it would not change our nation’s calculated GDP; that’s not true.

The nation’s balance of trade is integral to the calculation of its GDP. Elimination of petroleum from USA’s aggregate imports would modify USA’s GDP. Why is this of any significance?
The proposed trade policy would not materially affect USA’s global petroleum trade.

Within this trade proposal, USA’s global trade of goods (to to the extent of specifically listed minerals integral to those goods) are unaffected by this proposal. It’s to be expected that the U.S. Congress would include petroleum, gold, silver, platinum, chrome, gem stones, radium and rare earths on that list of list of scarce or precious materials.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations GDPs. This is not reason to avoid global trade, but it’s an excellent reason to attempt reducing if not eliminating our trade deficits.
Buffett’s proposal’s purpose was to bolster the value of the U.S. dollar which becomes additionally more critical as we increase oil imports. I believe that the proposal’s greatest benefit would be to reduce our current and future export of well paying jobs.

What is your point? What is it that you’re advocating?
This proposal does not intervene within trade to the extent of the specifically listed minerals that may be integral to any globally traded goods.

You want to spin your wheels? Reduce any annual GDP by the amount of USA’s annual petroleum imports and not arrive at a lesser GDP. Then recalculate USA’s GDP but reduce USA’s trade deficit by the amount of USA’s annual petroleum imports; both calculations will provide the exact same LESSER GDP. The GDP expenditure formula is what it is.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My political position or the political position of your import certificate suggestion has nothing to do with the fact that some imports help us grow our GDP.

You can't take our current output numbers, including oil imports, and recalculate them assuming no oil imports? I predict if you do, you'll see GDP remains unchanged.

Toddster Patriot, you wrote “You can't take our current output numbers, including oil imports, and recalculate them assuming no oil imports”? Why would we want to do so? What’s the significance of the resulting statistic?

You state that if we eliminated petroleum imports, (in any form?), from our globally aggregate imports, it would not change our nation’s calculated GDP; that’s not true.

The nation’s balance of trade is integral to the calculation of its GDP. Elimination of petroleum from USA’s aggregate imports would modify USA’s GDP. Why is this of any significance?
The proposed trade policy would not materially affect USA’s global petroleum trade.

Within this trade proposal, USA’s global trade of goods (to to the extent of specifically listed minerals integral to those goods) are unaffected by this proposal. It’s to be expected that the U.S. Congress would include petroleum, gold, silver, platinum, chrome, gem stones, radium and rare earths on that list of list of scarce or precious materials.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations GDPs. This is not reason to avoid global trade, but it’s an excellent reason to attempt reducing if not eliminating our trade deficits.
Buffett’s proposal’s purpose was to bolster the value of the U.S. dollar which becomes additionally more critical as we increase oil imports. I believe that the proposal’s greatest benefit would be to reduce our current and future export of well paying jobs.

What is your point? What is it that you’re advocating?
This proposal does not intervene within trade to the extent of the specifically listed minerals that may be integral to any globally traded goods.

You want to spin your wheels? Reduce any annual GDP by the amount of USA’s annual petroleum imports and not arrive at a lesser GDP. Then recalculate USA’s GDP but reduce USA’s trade deficit by the amount of USA’s annual petroleum imports; both calculations will provide the exact same LESSER GDP. The GDP expenditure formula is what it is.

Respectfully, Supposn

The nation’s balance of trade is integral to the calculation of its GDP. Elimination of petroleum from USA’s aggregate imports would modify USA’s GDP. Why is this of any significance?

Run the numbers.
Show me.
Prove your claim.