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

[Supposn]

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.

Excerpted from: Stupid - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1stu•pid
adjective \ˈstü-pəd, ˈstyü-\
Definition of STUPID
1
a : slow of mind : OBTUSE
b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2
: dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3
: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS <a stupid decision>
4
a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event>
b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <the stupid car won't start>
— stu•pid•ly adverb
— stu•pid•ness noun

 

[Supposn]

[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:

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

ICs would be are less likely than free trade or tariffs to be subjected mischief contrary to USA’s economic interests. Such mischief is even perpetrated by our own government to our own economic disadvantage.
I particularly recall the U.S. government negotiating away the interests of Louisiana rice farmers because the USA wanted to retain naval bases in Okinawa. Under the IC trade proposal, government has no such policy discretion and USA’s trade could not be negotiable.

The Marshall Plan’s expenses were paid for b y all taxpayers. The expenses were not borne by particular industries or wage earners. I am opposed to demeaning USA’s median wages and our economy.

The immediate best interests of commercial entities participating within global trade diverge from that of our entire nation. Corporations benefit from decreasing their labor forces and costs. USA unemployment and/or wages of lesser purchasing power `are a net detriment to our economy. Our annual trade deficits are net detriments to our entire economy (and beyond the immediate gains by principles of global trade transactions) they are detrimental even to USA’s aggregate commercial entities.

Free trade proponents deliberately ignore the IC proposal’s being entirely free enterprise, but it would prevent a USA trade deficit of applicable goods.

The IC proposal excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to goods from the assessment of those goods. Except for those exceptions, the IC policy does not discriminate between any types of goods or industries. The IC proposal does not discriminate between foreign nations. It is of advantage to any USA entity which competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods.

Free trade proponents ignore that within the proposal, the market will continue to import foreign goods that are superior in quality and/or of lesser cost to what the USA has been able to produce. What differs is the IC’s intolerance for a USA trade deficit of goods. The market, (not the government) will be forced to adjust itself because the IC policy prevents USA’s aggregate annual trade deficits.

The IC proposal's purpose is to prevent USA's annual trade deficits of aggregate goods.
Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs and median wages.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[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:

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

ICs would be are less likely than free trade or tariffs to be subjected mischief contrary to USA’s economic interests. Such mischief is even perpetrated by our own government to our own economic disadvantage.
I particularly recall the U.S. government negotiating away the interests of Louisiana rice farmers because the USA wanted to retain naval bases in Okinawa. Under the IC trade proposal, government has no such policy discretion and USA’s trade could not be negotiable.

The Marshall Plan’s expenses were paid for b y all taxpayers. The expenses were not borne by particular industries or wage earners. I am opposed to demeaning USA’s median wages and our economy.

The immediate best interests of commercial entities participating within global trade diverge from that of our entire nation. Corporations benefit from decreasing their labor forces and costs. USA unemployment and/or wages of lesser purchasing power `are a net detriment to our economy. Our annual trade deficits are net detriments to our entire economy (and beyond the immediate gains by principles of global trade transactions) they are detrimental even to USA’s aggregate commercial entities.

Free trade proponents deliberately ignore the IC proposal’s being entirely free enterprise, but it would prevent a USA trade deficit of applicable goods.

The IC proposal excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to goods from the assessment of those goods. Except for those exceptions, the IC policy does not discriminate between any types of goods or industries. The IC proposal does not discriminate between foreign nations. It is of advantage to any USA entity which competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods.

Free trade proponents ignore that within the proposal, the market will continue to import foreign goods that are superior in quality and/or of lesser cost to what the USA has been able to produce. What differs is the IC’s intolerance for a USA trade deficit of goods. The market, (not the government) will be forced to adjust itself because the IC policy prevents USA’s aggregate annual trade deficits.

The IC proposal's purpose is to prevent USA's annual trade deficits of aggregate goods.
Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs and median wages.

Buffet and uber lefty liberals thought up the idiotic IC gimmick, and Buffet said it was very similar to a tariff.

Almost all economists assume free trade nowadays especially after the Great Depression because they are smart enough to understand that the more with whom you trade the richer you get. Imagine if you had to make everything yourself?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot & Baiaimonte, 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 or supposition 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

Yes, I know the silly plan exempts oil.

I'm interested in your claim that trade deficits are detrimental to GDP, aside from the silly plan.

I've shown your claim to be in error. That is all.

 

[Supposn]

[/B]Buffet and uber lefty liberals thought up the idiotic IC gimmick, and Buffet said it was very similar to a tariff.

Almost all economists assume free trade nowadays especially after the Great Depression because they are smart enough to understand that the more with whom you trade the richer you get. Imagine if you had to make everything yourself?

Edward Baiamonte, I wrote of the proposed import Certificates, (ICs) not being tariffs. Although ICs share many similar characteristics, there are critical differences between ICs and tariffs. I doubt if Buffett wrote anything that materially differed from that.

You continue to defend global trade despite global trade not being an issue of contention between us.

Due to the ICs’ behaving as export subsidies, the adoption of his trade policy would soon more than otherwise increase USA’s aggregate annual global trade volumes. You’re disingenuously implying that IC proponents intend to eliminate USA’s global trade. It would eliminate our trade deficit of assessed goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Yes, I know the silly plan exempts oil.
I'm interested in your claim that trade deficits are detrimental to GDP, aside from the silly plan.I've shown your claim to be in error. That is all.

Toddster patriot, messages #291 & 295 presented the explanations you’re requesting. No one has posted a logical argument that refutes those messages.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations’ GDPs.

The $453 billion in oil imports last year didn't help our GDP?
Wow, so we can cut those imports to zero and suffer no shrinkage of GDP.
Good to know.

 

[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's a seperate USA issue and requires its own remedy.

Respectfully, Supposn

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.

I'm pretty sure that oil is a "production enabling product".

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

I'm pretty sure our $453 billion in oil imports last year did "bear fruit".
I'm pretty sure that oil increased our GDP more than if we did not import and use that oil last year. As always, I'm willing to examine any evidence you provide showing our GDP would be higher if we did not import and consume that oil.

 

[Supposn]

Toddster Patriot & Baiaimonte, You&#8217;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&#8217;s globally traded goods.

Your question or supposition is not an analogy or any manner related to the trade policy I&#8217;m advocating.
I did not and will not entertain your question (as is) because I want to continue ending my responses with the word &#8220;respectfully&#8221;.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot & Baiaimonte, 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 or supposition 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

You’re aware and continue to ignore that the trade proposal I advocate is not applicable to the value of oil

Did you say the following?

Trade deficits contribute absolutely nothing to their nations’ GDPs.

Yes or no?

 

[Supposn]

Toddster Patriot, Yes I do contend aggregate annual trade deficits make no net contributions to their nations’ GDPs.
That does not conflict with my message #295. What (if any) portion of #295 do you disagree with?

USA imports bananas and those imports are an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP.

To the extent that our importation of bananas EVENTUALLY contributes to USA’s GDP, (i.e. to the extent that bananas contribute something to food service enterprises’ service production; but it is not (more than otherwise) a NET increase to our eventual GDP. Had our marketing geniuses been able to market dishes with fewer imported bananas and more USA produced strawberries, our GDP would be greater than otherwise.

The IC proposal would not prevent the importation of bananas. It is of advantage to USA producers of strawberries to the extent that they’re at lesser disadvantage to foreign low wage banana producers.

If within an IC trade policy USA consumers continue to prefer bananas at a somewhat greater cost, they will do so.
If the increased price of imported bananas equates to a shift to increased production of USA strawberries, USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage will be somewhat greater than otherwise.

Lesser priced foreign goods do not compensate for USA wages lesser purchasing power due our trade deficit. Our trade deficit reduces our GDP, numbers of jobs and/or median wage. Trade deficits are ALWAYS (more than otherwise) detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster Patriot, Yes I do contend aggregate annual trade deficits make no net contributions to their nations’ GDPs.
That does not conflict with my message #295. What (if any) portion of #295 do you disagree with?

USA imports bananas and those imports are an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP.

To the extent that our importation of bananas EVENTUALLY contributes to USA’s GDP, (i.e. to the extent that bananas contribute something to food service enterprises’ service production; but it is not (more than otherwise) a NET increase to our eventual GDP. Had our marketing geniuses been able to market dishes with fewer imported bananas and more USA produced strawberries, our GDP would be greater than otherwise.

The IC proposal would not prevent the importation of bananas. It is of advantage to USA producers of strawberries to the extent that they’re at lesser disadvantage to foreign low wage banana producers.

If within an IC trade policy USA consumers continue to prefer bananas at a somewhat greater cost, they will do so.
If the increased price of imported bananas equates to a shift to increased production of USA strawberries, USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage will be somewhat greater than otherwise.

Lesser priced foreign goods do not compensate for USA wages lesser purchasing power due our trade deficit. Our trade deficit reduces our GDP, numbers of jobs and/or median wage. Trade deficits are ALWAYS (more than otherwise) detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Respectfully, Supposn

USA imports bananas and those imports are an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP.

Look at your own preferred GDP formula.
We import $1 billion worth of bananas.
We consume $1 billion worth of bananas.
I'm pretty sure those numbers cancel each other out in your formula.
If they do, how can these be "an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP"?

Do the math and get back to me.

 

[Supposn]

USA imports bananas and those imports are an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP.

Look at your own preferred GDP formula.
We import $1 billion worth of bananas.
We consume $1 billion worth of bananas.
I'm pretty sure those numbers cancel each other out in your formula.
If they do, how can these be "an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP"?

Do the math and get back to me.

Toddster Patriot, you believe that the same amounts of nation’s GDPs per capita are economically at par to each other even if their nations’ numbers of jobs and/or median wages per capita significantly differ?

Because USA purchasers preferred Ecuadorian bananas to USA strawberries, it was Ecuadorian producers rather than the USA that benefitted from the entire net benefits of increased production. Among the benefits from increased production are the additional indirect productions supporting goods and service products, experience and additional knowledge.
A trade deficit indicates the net extent of production benefits that a nation immediately denied itself.

An enterprise that can reduce their labor costs and increasing their profits is acting in their own best interests. They would be penalizing themselves if they did otherwise. USA enterprises are not individually penalized due to our nation’s global trade deficit of goods but net outsourcing beyond our borders is in aggregate detrimental to our economy and the greater portion of that detriment is borne by USA wage earners and their families.

The explanation and answer to your question is imbedded within the scenario of what would be the consequences if the USA chose to increase or decrease our volume of banana imports.
How would we then spend the money? If we spend it upon wealth transfers, then eventually some of that money will finally be spent for goods and services. Will that spending eventuality be for domestic or for imported products?

You don’t believe that without some reason USA’s annual trade deficit increasing or decreasing a significant amount, our annual aggregate purchases for USA consumption and/or investment and/or government would approximately equal the amount of trade deficit’s change?

This is not the first time I’ve asked if there’s a significant differences of USA’s annual trade deficits, what were USA purchasers (i.e. USA expenditures for consumption and/or investment and/or government) during those periods?

[Let us not forget that economics cannot be analyzed with the same laboratory objectivity as physics or chemistry. Economics is much more a subjective philosophy rather than an objective science. Logic is the major tool for studying economics.]

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

USA imports bananas and those imports are an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP.

Look at your own preferred GDP formula.
We import $1 billion worth of bananas.
We consume $1 billion worth of bananas.
I'm pretty sure those numbers cancel each other out in your formula.
If they do, how can these be "an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP"?

Do the math and get back to me.

Toddster Patriot, you believe that the same amounts of nation’s GDPs per capita are economically at par to each other even if their nations’ numbers of jobs and/or median wages per capita significantly differ?

Because USA purchasers preferred Ecuadorian bananas to USA strawberries, it was Ecuadorian producers rather than the USA that benefitted from the entire net benefits of increased production. Among the benefits from increased production are the additional indirect productions supporting goods and service products, experience and additional knowledge.
A trade deficit indicates the net extent of production benefits that a nation immediately denied itself.

An enterprise that can reduce their labor costs and increasing their profits is acting in their own best interests. They would be penalizing themselves if they did otherwise. USA enterprises are not individually penalized due to our nation’s global trade deficit of goods but net outsourcing beyond our borders is in aggregate detrimental to our economy and the greater portion of that detriment is borne by USA wage earners and their families.

The explanation and answer to your question is imbedded within the scenario of what would be the consequences if the USA chose to increase or decrease our volume of banana imports.
How would we then spend the money? If we spend it upon wealth transfers, then eventually some of that money will finally be spent for goods and services. Will that spending eventuality be for domestic or for imported products?

You don’t believe that without some reason USA’s annual trade deficit increasing or decreasing a significant amount, our annual aggregate purchases for USA consumption and/or investment and/or government would approximately equal the amount of trade deficit’s change?

This is not the first time I’ve asked if there’s a significant differences of USA’s annual trade deficits, what were USA purchasers (i.e. USA expenditures for consumption and/or investment and/or government) during those periods?

[Let us not forget that economics cannot be analyzed with the same laboratory objectivity as physics or chemistry. Economics is much more a subjective philosophy rather than an objective science. Logic is the major tool for studying economics.]

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, you believe that the same amounts of nation’s GDPs per capita are economically at par to each other even if their nations’ numbers of jobs and/or median wages per capita significantly differ?

Why would I believe that?

Because USA purchasers preferred Ecuadorian bananas to USA strawberries, it was Ecuadorian producers rather than the USA that benefitted from the entire net benefits of increased production

Are you forgetting the benefit the consumers receive?
Protectionists often do.

The explanation and answer to your question is imbedded within the scenario of what would be the consequences if the USA chose to increase or decrease our volume of banana imports.

Don't get ahead of yourself.
Do the math first.
Show me the impact on GDP.

 

[Supposn]

USA imports bananas and those imports are an immediate detriment to USA’s GDP.

Toddster Patriot, ...Because USA purchasers preferred Ecuadorian bananas to USA strawberries, it was Ecuadorian producers rather than the USA that benefitted from the entire net benefits of increased production. Among the benefits from increased production are the additional indirect productions supporting goods and service products, experience and additional knowledge.
A trade deficit indicates the net extent of production benefits that a nation immediately denied itself......The explanation and answer to your question is imbedded within the scenario of what would be the consequences if the USA chose to increase or decrease our volume of banana imports.
How would we then spend the money? If we spend it upon wealth transfers, then eventually some of that money will finally be spent for goods and services. Will that spending eventuality be for domestic or for imported products?..............
This is not the first time I’ve asked if there’s a significant differences of USA’s annual trade deficits, what were USA purchasers (i.e. USA expenditures for consumption and/or investment and/or government) during those periods?..........Respectfully, Supposn

Because USA purchasers preferred Ecuadorian bananas to USA strawberries, it was Ecuadorian producers rather than the USA that benefitted from the entire net benefits of increased production

Are you forgetting the benefit the consumers receive?
Protectionists often do.

The explanation and answer to your question is imbedded within the scenario of what would be the consequences if the USA chose to increase or decrease our volume of banana imports.

Don't get ahead of yourself.
Do the math first.
Show me the impact on GDP.

Toddster Patriot, I fully factored in the benefits to consumers; you’re overlooking benefit’s adjective which is “NET”.
//////////

No, You’re getting ahead of yourself. It’s your scenario.

I again request you provide the numbers prior to and following the modification of the annual trade deficits.
If you are unwilling to reasonably speculate as to what were the reasons for those statistical changes, I’ll take a stab at it. USA import purchases were reduced for what reason or purpose? If the money wasn't spent for imports, what was it eventually spent for?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because USA purchasers preferred Ecuadorian bananas to USA strawberries, it was Ecuadorian producers rather than the USA that benefitted from the entire net benefits of increased production

Are you forgetting the benefit the consumers receive?
Protectionists often do.

The explanation and answer to your question is imbedded within the scenario of what would be the consequences if the USA chose to increase or decrease our volume of banana imports.

Don't get ahead of yourself.
Do the math first.
Show me the impact on GDP.

Toddster Patriot, I fully factored in the benefits to consumers; you&#8217;re overlooking benefit&#8217;s adjective which is &#8220;NET&#8221;.
//////////

No, You&#8217;re getting ahead of yourself. It&#8217;s your scenario.

I again request you provide the numbers prior to and following the modification of the annual trade deficits.
If you are unwilling to reasonably speculate as to what were the reasons for those statistical changes, I&#8217;ll take a stab at it. USA import purchases were reduced for what reason or purpose? If the money wasn't spent for imports, what was it eventually spent for?

Respectfully, Supposn

I fully factored in the benefits to consumers;

No you didn't.

you&#8217;re overlooking benefit&#8217;s adjective which is &#8220;NET&#8221;.

Like so many protectionists, you think the only benefit is that received by the recipient of the money. The recipient of the good or service also benefits, otherwise he wouldn't spend the money to purchase the good or service.

I again request you provide the numbers prior to and following the modification of the annual trade deficits.

This appears to be your favorite calculation for GDP.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports &#8722; imports)

This is the source for your claim that trade deficits hurt GDP.
So let's rewrite this for the happy day when we cut oil imports to zero, because they hurt GDP.
I'll use the 2011 oil import figure of $453 billion.

GDP = [private consumption - $453 billion] + gross investment + government spending + (exports - [imports - $453 billion])

As you can see, consumption is reduced by the oil we no longer use and net exports are increased by the oil we no longer import. It's a wash.

So explain how oil imports hurt GDP.

 

[Supposn]

ike so many protectionists, you think the only benefit is that received by the recipient of the money. The recipient of the good or service also benefits, otherwise he wouldn't spend the money to purchase the good or service....

Toddster Patriot, cheaper imports do not compensate for the lesser purchasing power of the median wage.

Median wage earners proportion of our population that is the definition of middle income earners has been reducing. The primary purpose of the IC proposal is to reduce our trade deficit of goods; this in turn will increase our GDP and the purchasing power of our median wage.
The justification of the Import Certificate proposal is to eliminate pure free trades’ detrimental effect upon our median wage. Certainly trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation’s GDPs and in turn to the purchasing power of their median wage.

The recipient of the good or service also benefits, otherwise he wouldn't spend the money to purchase the good or service..........

My duty to my family requires me to purchase products for them at least prices. It is not our family’s fault that our nation’s trade policy enables us to do so in a manner that is detrimental to my nation’s economy. If I personally behaved differently, it would be detrimental to my family and would not remedy my nation’s trade policy.

Similarly corporate officers’ duties to their enterprises’ share holders are to purchase products on behalf of their corporations for at least prices. It is not their fault that our nation’s trade policy enables them to do so in a manner that is detrimental to our nation’s economy. If they individually behaved differently, it would be detrimental to their enterprises and would not remedy our nation’s trade policy.

It is our duty as citizens to lobby for what we believe to be in the best interests of our nation. The concept of a democratic republic is that such activity will be in aggregate to our own and our nation’s best interests.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

......................This appears to be your favorite calculation for GDP.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports &#8722; imports)

This is the source for your claim that trade deficits hurt GDP.
So let's rewrite this for the happy day when we cut oil imports to zero, because they hurt GDP.
I'll use the 2011 oil import figure of $453 billion.

GDP = [private consumption - $453 billion] + gross investment + government spending + (exports - [imports - $453 billion])

As you can see, consumption is reduced by the oil we no longer use and net exports are increased by the oil we no longer import. It's a wash.

So explain how oil imports hurt GDP.

Toddster Patriot, I will not discuss any globally traded goods with specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to them.

Did you really intend writing of $453,000,000,000 reduction from USA’s 2011 trade deficit?

Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP but it would have put an aggregate of USA purchasers in improved cash flow positions.
The eventual affect of such transactions would be undetermined until U.S. purchasers spent the money deliberately or regardless of purpose, eventually made some purchases that actually did or would affect USA’s GDP.

If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s trade deficit,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $453,000,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s imports of goods and shifted to USA’s exports of goods, and USA's purchases remained constant, USA’s 2011 balance of trade and our GDP would have increased by $906,000,000,000.

In all of these 3 cases there would have been a net increase of USA’s median wage’s purchasing power and the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar would have been strengthened.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ike so many protectionists, you think the only benefit is that received by the recipient of the money. The recipient of the good or service also benefits, otherwise he wouldn't spend the money to purchase the good or service....

Toddster Patriot, cheaper imports do not compensate for the lesser purchasing power of the median wage.

Median wage earners proportion of our population that is the definition of middle income earners has been reducing. The primary purpose of the IC proposal is to reduce our trade deficit of goods; this in turn will increase our GDP and the purchasing power of our median wage.
The justification of the Import Certificate proposal is to eliminate pure free trades’ detrimental effect upon our median wage. Certainly trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation’s GDPs and in turn to the purchasing power of their median wage.

The recipient of the good or service also benefits, otherwise he wouldn't spend the money to purchase the good or service..........

My duty to my family requires me to purchase products for them at least prices. It is not our family’s fault that our nation’s trade policy enables us to do so in a manner that is detrimental to my nation’s economy. If I personally behaved differently, it would be detrimental to my family and would not remedy my nation’s trade policy.

Similarly corporate officers’ duties to their enterprises’ share holders are to purchase products on behalf of their corporations for at least prices. It is not their fault that our nation’s trade policy enables them to do so in a manner that is detrimental to our nation’s economy. If they individually behaved differently, it would be detrimental to their enterprises and would not remedy our nation’s trade policy.

It is our duty as citizens to lobby for what we believe to be in the best interests of our nation. The concept of a democratic republic is that such activity will be in aggregate to our own and our nation’s best interests.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, cheaper imports do not compensate for the lesser purchasing power of the median wage.

That is an interesting theory.
I look forward to the proof you'll post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

......................This appears to be your favorite calculation for GDP.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports &#8722; imports)

This is the source for your claim that trade deficits hurt GDP.
So let's rewrite this for the happy day when we cut oil imports to zero, because they hurt GDP.
I'll use the 2011 oil import figure of $453 billion.

GDP = [private consumption - $453 billion] + gross investment + government spending + (exports - [imports - $453 billion])

As you can see, consumption is reduced by the oil we no longer use and net exports are increased by the oil we no longer import. It's a wash.

So explain how oil imports hurt GDP.

Toddster Patriot, I will not discuss any globally traded goods with specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to them.

Did you really intend writing of $453,000,000,000 reduction from USA’s 2011 trade deficit?

Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP but it would have put an aggregate of USA purchasers in improved cash flow positions.
The eventual affect of such transactions would be undetermined until U.S. purchasers spent the money deliberately or regardless of purpose, eventually made some purchases that actually did or would affect USA’s GDP.

If the half of the $453,000,000,000 USA trade deficit were shifted to be spent for additional USA’s domestic products,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $226,500,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s trade deficit,
USA’s GDP in 2011 would have been increased by $453,000,000,000.

If the entire $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures were shifted from USA’s imports of goods and shifted to USA’s exports of goods, and USA's purchases remained constant, USA’s 2011 balance of trade and our GDP would have increased by $906,000,000,000.

In all of these 3 cases there would have been a net increase of USA’s median wage’s purchasing power and the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar would have been strengthened.

Respectfully, Supposn

Any portion of that $453,000,000,000 USA expenditures shifted to transfers of wealth transactions would not have changed USA’s 2011 GDP

YES! Cutting those imports to zero and reducing our oil consumption by the same amount does not change GDP.

“trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”

You've just admitted your above claim is wrong. Finally.