Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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? Whats 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 nations calculated GDP; thats not true.
The nations balance of trade is integral to the calculation of its GDP. Elimination of petroleum from USAs aggregate imports would modify USAs GDP. Why is this of any significance?
The proposed trade policy would not materially affect USAs global petroleum trade.
Within this trade proposal, USAs global trade of goods (to to the extent of specifically listed minerals integral to those goods) are unaffected by this proposal. Its 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 its an excellent reason to attempt reducing if not eliminating our trade deficits.
Buffetts proposals 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 proposals greatest benefit would be to reduce our current and future export of well paying jobs.
What is your point? What is it that youre 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 USAs annual petroleum imports and not arrive at a lesser GDP. Then recalculate USAs GDP but reduce USAs trade deficit by the amount of USAs annual petroleum imports; both calculations will provide the exact same LESSER GDP. The GDP expenditure formula is what it is.
Respectfully, Supposn
The nations balance of trade is integral to the calculation of its GDP. Elimination of petroleum from USAs aggregate imports would modify USAs GDP. Why is this of any significance?
Run the numbers.
Show me.
Prove your claim.
...........Run the numbers. Show me. Prove your claim.
...........Run the numbers. Show me. Prove your claim.
Edward Baiamonte & Toddster Patriot, the expenditure formula is among the simplest and most commonly used GDP calculation formulas. (Note that all conventionally accepted GDP formulas produce similar GDP amounts and they all directly or indirectly factor in the nations global trade balance to calculate the GDP).
///////////////////////////////
Excerpted from Wikipedias explanation of GDP:
Gross domestic product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports),
or
GDP = C + I + G + (X- M)
//////////////////////////////
Thus GDP = (Nations total spending for goods & services)
plus (Nations global trade balance).
If you increase the nations global trade balance, GDP is increased.
If you reduce the nations global trade balance, GDP is reduced.
I last explained all of this in some more detail within messages #291 & #295.
I dont see how I can explain it simpler. Algebra gives us the correct answer regardless of which years statistics you choose to plug in. Im not going to do your entire homework.
You plug in the numbers and it you find any authoritative set of figures that contradict my explanation, post your link to those figures so we can all appreciate it.
Respectfully, Supposn
Evidently the Wikiposters never studied econ far enough to get to the part of the book with the other GDP formulas. GDP can be added up several ways, and beginning econ classes often introduce the little kids to the one where the trade deficit is subtracted with in the simple one you found, the big kids in the later semesters also have to learn other GDP formulas including those ignoring the "trade deficit"--...Wikipedias explanation of GDP:...........Run the numbers. Show me. Prove your claim.
Gross domestic product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports),
or GDP = C + I + G + (X- M)...
GDP = R + I + P + SA + W[/INDENT]--and the best students go on to classes where they learn how the trade deficit amount increases the GDP in this formula:R : rents
I : interests
P : profits
SA : statistical adjustments (corporate income taxes, dividends, undistributed corporate profits)
W : wages
GDP = COE + GOS + GMI + TP & M SP & MCompensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to social security and other such programs.
Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses. Often called profits, although only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output to calculate GOS.
Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated businesses. This often includes most small businesses.
TP & M SP & M are taxes less subsidies on production and importsGDP = GNP + NR -E - NY NCT + CABGNP = Gross National Product
NR = Net income from assets abroad (Net Income Receipts
E = Excess of Exports over Imports
NY = Net income abroad
NCT = Net current transfers
CAB = Current Account Balance
The bottom line here is what's happening in real life. Every time that stupid 'trade deficit' gets bigger...
...employment and production soar.
GDP = R + I + P + SA + W[/INDENT]--and the best students go on to classes where they learn how the trade deficit amount increases the GDP in this formula:R : rents
I : interests
P : profits
SA : statistical adjustments (corporate income taxes, dividends, undistributed corporate profits)
W : wages
GDP = COE + GOS + GMI + TP & M SP & MCompensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to social security and other such programs.
Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses. Often called profits, although only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output to calculate GOS.
Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated businesses. This often includes most small businesses.
TP & M SP & M are taxes less subsidies on production and importsGDP = GNP + NR -E - NY NCT + CABGNP = Gross National Product
NR = Net income from assets abroad (Net Income Receipts
E = Excess of Exports over Imports
NY = Net income abroad
NCT = Net current transfers
CAB = Current Account Balance
The bottom line here is what's happening in real life. Every time that stupid 'trade deficit' gets bigger...
...employment and production soar.
ExPat_Pananama, there are other formulas for GDP but if those that include consumer spending must also include balance of trade. Because the formulas you offer include transfers of wealth, I doubt that they are among any conventionally recognized formulas employed by recognizable global statisticians or economists communities.
Ill be offline for a couple of days. That will give you time to find any authoritative link for the formulas you offer. I do not believe them to be formulas for GDP.
Respectfully, Supposn
Not to get in Suposin's way, but you just stated that you decreased imports by $453B and reduced consumption by the same amount. Which is an exercise in irationality. You made assumptions in order to get to the result that you want.GDP = R + I + P + SA + W[/INDENT]--and the best students go on to classes where they learn how the trade deficit amount increases the GDP in this formula:R : rents
I : interests
P : profits
SA : statistical adjustments (corporate income taxes, dividends, undistributed corporate profits)
W : wages
GDP = COE + GOS + GMI + TP & M SP & MCompensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to social security and other such programs.
Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses. Often called profits, although only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output to calculate GOS.
Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated businesses. This often includes most small businesses.
TP & M SP & M are taxes less subsidies on production and importsGDP = GNP + NR -E - NY NCT + CABGNP = Gross National Product
NR = Net income from assets abroad (Net Income Receipts
E = Excess of Exports over Imports
NY = Net income abroad
NCT = Net current transfers
CAB = Current Account Balance
The bottom line here is what's happening in real life. Every time that stupid 'trade deficit' gets bigger...
...employment and production soar.
ExPat_Pananama, there are other formulas for GDP but if those that include consumer spending must also include balance of trade. Because the formulas you offer include transfers of wealth, I doubt that they are among any conventionally recognized formulas employed by recognizable global statisticians or economists communities.
Ill be offline for a couple of days. That will give you time to find any authoritative link for the formulas you offer. I do not believe them to be formulas for GDP.
Respectfully, Supposn
When you come back, will you be able to answer my question?
I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
I'll get you started. Reduce consumption by $453 billion. Now reduce imports by $453 billion.
Thanks for your math help!
Depends a lot on what options the consumer has
Not to get in Suposin's way, but you just stated that you decreased imports by $453B and reduced consumption by the same amount. Which is an exercise in irationality. You made assumptions in order to get to the result that you want.ExPat_Pananama, there are other formulas for GDP but if those that include consumer spending must also include balance of trade. Because the formulas you offer include transfers of wealth, I doubt that they are among any conventionally recognized formulas employed by recognizable global statisticians or economists communities.
Ill be offline for a couple of days. That will give you time to find any authoritative link for the formulas you offer. I do not believe them to be formulas for GDP.
Respectfully, Supposn
When you come back, will you be able to answer my question?
I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
I'll get you started. Reduce consumption by $453 billion. Now reduce imports by $453 billion.
Thanks for your math help!
So, reducing imports by X does not mean that consumption reduces by that same amount. Because, as you well know, the consumer has options. Like spending on other goods and services, or investing, or saving. So, while your question has an obvious answer, it is a completely immaterial question. Who cares. What is important is what the consumer would actually do. And that is something that no formula will answer. Depends a lot on what options the consumer has, how badly he needs the result that buying the products the import would provide, etc. Basic old elasticity of demand.
.....................Excellent! I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
Use your algebra.
.....................Excellent! I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
Use your algebra.
Toddster Patriot & Baiamonte, you tell us what portions $453,000,000,000 are each of the 3 general sources, (i.e. consumers, investors, government) reducing their spending for foreign goods? Money doesnt generally sit undisturbed in checking accounts. Whats done with it? This proposed trade policy is primarily driven by the (U.S. domestic) market.
We then might all consider the possible consequences of your scenario.
[Youre aware and continue to ignore that the trade proposal I advocate is not applicable to the value of oil or any other specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to USAs globally traded goods]. Your question is not an analogy or any manner related to the trade policy Im advocating.
I did not and will not entertain your question (as is) because I want to continue ending my responses with the word respectfully.
Respectfully, Supposn
Consumption is not the same of consumption of imported oil. Consumption of imported oil is part of consumption. so, consumption of bus tickets is consumption, consumption of more fuel efficient cars is consumption, etc. etc, etc.Not to get in Suposin's way, but you just stated that you decreased imports by $453B and reduced consumption by the same amount. Which is an exercise in irationality. You made assumptions in order to get to the result that you want.When you come back, will you be able to answer my question?
I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
I'll get you started. Reduce consumption by $453 billion. Now reduce imports by $453 billion.
Thanks for your math help!
So, reducing imports by X does not mean that consumption reduces by that same amount. Because, as you well know, the consumer has options. Like spending on other goods and services, or investing, or saving. So, while your question has an obvious answer, it is a completely immaterial question. Who cares. What is important is what the consumer would actually do. And that is something that no formula will answer. Depends a lot on what options the consumer has, how badly he needs the result that buying the products the import would provide, etc. Basic old elasticity of demand.
Not to get in Suposin's way, but you just stated that you decreased imports by $453B and reduced consumption by the same amount. Which is an exercise in irationality.
Well, it is difficult to consume imported oil if you don't import it in the first place.
.....................Excellent! I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
Use your algebra.
Toddster Patriot & Baiamonte, you tell us what portions $453,000,000,000 are each of the 3 general sources, (i.e. consumers, investors, government) reducing their spending for foreign goods? Money doesnt generally sit undisturbed in checking accounts. Whats done with it? This proposed trade policy is primarily driven by the (U.S. domestic) market.
We then might all consider the possible consequences of your scenario.
[Youre aware and continue to ignore that the trade proposal I advocate is not applicable to the value of oil or any other specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to USAs globally traded goods]. Your question is not an analogy or any manner related to the trade policy Im advocating.
I did not and will not entertain your question (as is) because I want to continue ending my responses with the word respectfully.
Respectfully, Supposn
Consumption is not the same of consumption of imported oil. Consumption of imported oil is part of consumption. so, consumption of bus tickets is consumption, consumption of more fuel efficient cars is consumption, etc. etc, etc.Not to get in Suposin's way, but you just stated that you decreased imports by $453B and reduced consumption by the same amount. Which is an exercise in irationality. You made assumptions in order to get to the result that you want.
So, reducing imports by X does not mean that consumption reduces by that same amount. Because, as you well know, the consumer has options. Like spending on other goods and services, or investing, or saving. So, while your question has an obvious answer, it is a completely immaterial question. Who cares. What is important is what the consumer would actually do. And that is something that no formula will answer. Depends a lot on what options the consumer has, how badly he needs the result that buying the products the import would provide, etc. Basic old elasticity of demand.
Not to get in Suposin's way, but you just stated that you decreased imports by $453B and reduced consumption by the same amount. Which is an exercise in irationality.
Well, it is difficult to consume imported oil if you don't import it in the first place.
.....................Excellent! I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
Use your algebra.
Toddster Patriot & Baiamonte, you tell us what portions $453,000,000,000 are each of the 3 general sources, (i.e. consumers, investors, government) reducing their spending for foreign goods? Money doesnt generally sit undisturbed in checking accounts. Whats done with it? This proposed trade policy is primarily driven by the (U.S. domestic) market.
We then might all consider the possible consequences of your scenario.
[Youre aware and continue to ignore that the trade proposal I advocate is not applicable to the value of oil or any other specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to USAs globally traded goods]. Your question is not an analogy or any manner related to the trade policy Im advocating.
I did not and will not entertain your question (as is) because I want to continue ending my responses with the word respectfully.
Respectfully, Supposn
Toddster Patriot & Baiaimonte, it occurs to me that I can retain civility and answer your question.
Since youre unwilling or unable to further expand your speculation as to the circumstances that would cause our ceasing to, (as you report) annually import $453,000,000,000 of petroleum. Ill accept Edward Baiaimontes thought of a domestic substitute for foreign oil that was the same price (or less, than foreign petroleum).
Then within the intervening year or years our petroleum imports have plunged to zero and because were now exporting our cheaper substitute for petroleum, we have a trade surplus and our GDP is going like gang busters.
Respectfully, Supposn
.....................Excellent! I take the $453 billion we spent on oil last year and I put it in my checking account instead.
What's GDP?
Use your algebra.
Toddster Patriot & Baiamonte, you tell us what portions $453,000,000,000 are each of the 3 general sources, (i.e. consumers, investors, government) reducing their spending for foreign goods? Money doesn’t generally sit undisturbed in checking accounts. What’s done with it? This proposed trade policy is primarily driven by the (U.S. domestic) market.
We then might all consider the possible consequences of your scenario.
[You’re aware and continue to ignore that the trade proposal I advocate is not applicable to the value of oil or any other specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to USA’s globally traded goods]. Your question is not an analogy or any manner related to the trade policy I’m advocating.
I did not and will not entertain your question (as is) because I want to continue ending my responses with the word “respectfully”.
Respectfully, Supposn
Toddster Patriot & Baiaimonte, it occurs to me that I can retain civility and answer your question.
Since you’re unwilling or unable to further expand your speculation as to the circumstances that would cause our ceasing to, (as you report) annually import $453,000,000,000 of petroleum. I’ll accept Edward Baiaimonte’s thought of “a domestic substitute for foreign oil that was the same price (or less, than foreign petroleum).
Then within the intervening year or years our petroleum imports have plunged to zero and because we’re now exporting our cheaper substitute for petroleum, we have a trade surplus and our GDP is going like “gang busters”.
Respectfully, Supposn
the trade proposal I advocate
the trade proposal I advocate
too stupid!! You advocate a tariff on imports which would make Americans poorer with higher prices, cause unemployment as other countries retaliated, and shield our industries from international competition making them, and our country, less than "world class."
As a liberal you simple lack the IQ to understand free trade:........................This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.
