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

[Supposn]

Someone posted "too stupid!! Friedman said there were, in effect, no trade deficits and that you cant cure a nation's non competitiveness with liberal magic!!" with no accompanying link.

If Freidman is being misquoted or quoted out of context, would that be due to an honest error or ignorance or a stupid lie?

Respectfully Supposn

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

Definition of STUPID
1a : 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>
4a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event>
b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <the stupid car won't start>

 

[Supposn]

Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items.

Of course not, because they make most obvious the error of your claims.

Toddster Patriot, if the provision for the excluding scarce or precious minerals were missing from the trade proposal, that would be a neglectful error. Your describing correct diligence as an error is itself an error.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items.

Of course not, because they make most obvious the error of your claims.

Toddster Patriot, if the provision for the excluding scarce or precious minerals were missing from the trade proposal, that would be a neglectful error. Your describing correct diligence as an error is itself an error.

Respectfully, Supposn

&#8220;trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations&#8217; GDPs&#8221;

Does your above claim only apply to things covered by Buffett's big government trade proposal?

 

[Supposn]

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

Does your above claim only apply to things covered by Buffett's big government trade proposal?

Toddster Patriot, trade deficits are a negative balance of a nation’s global trade. Nations’ annual trade deficits are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs but this proposal’s only applicable to tangible products.
Furthermore to the extent that minerals mentioned within a list of specific scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed are excluded from the assessments.

Services and any intangibles that might otherwise be factored into the calculations of GDPs are excluded because of the difficulty to objectively assess their values or to otherwise reasonably enforce their being subject to this proposed federal act. We should be reluctant to draft legislation that is more subjective and/or less objective.

Many precious minerals can (and sometimes have) serve (d) as a substitute or form of money. We do not wish to export cast gold paper weights imbedded with gems in order to import other products that would effectively be an obviously be significant loss of jobs and/or wages.

Inclusion of these items specified to be excluded would not justify the efforts and/or additional expenditures that would be the consequences of their inclusion; (i.e. these items are excluded because their inclusion doesn’t satisfy reasonable benefit/cost analysis).
[The word “cost” in this paragraph is used in its broadest sense. Less objectivity is a cost].

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Does your above claim only apply to things covered by Buffett's big government trade proposal?

Toddster Patriot, trade deficits are a negative balance of a nation’s global trade. Nations’ annual trade deficits are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs but this proposal’s only applicable to tangible products.
Furthermore to the extent that minerals mentioned within a list of specific scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed are excluded from the assessments.

Services and any intangibles that might otherwise be factored into the calculations of GDPs are excluded because of the difficulty to objectively assess their values or to otherwise reasonably enforce their being subject to this proposed federal act. We should be reluctant to draft legislation that is more subjective and/or less objective.

Many precious minerals can (and sometimes have) serve (d) as a substitute or form of money. We do not wish to export cast gold paper weights imbedded with gems in order to import other products that would effectively be an obviously be significant loss of jobs and/or wages.

Inclusion of these items specified to be excluded would not justify the efforts and/or additional expenditures that would be the consequences of their inclusion; (i.e. these items are excluded because their inclusion doesn’t satisfy reasonable benefit/cost analysis).
[The word “cost” in this paragraph is used in its broadest sense. Less objectivity is a cost].

Respectfully, Supposn

Nations’ annual trade deficits are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs

You keep repeating it but you never prove it.

 

[editec]

This nations growing trade imbalance has been a drag on employment and the economy since the REAGAN administration.

One has to be stupid beyond belief to demand an explanation for why this is a problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This nations growing trade imbalance has been a drag on employment and the economy since the REAGAN administration.

One has to be stupid beyond belief to demand an explanation for why this is a problem.

This nations growing trade imbalance has been a drag on employment and the economy since the REAGAN administration.

It's true, during periods of falling GDP and rising unemployment , the trade balance shrinks.
It's true, during periods of growing employment and rapidly growing GDP, the trade balance grows.
Oops, that doesn't help you prove your claim.

 

[Supposn]

Nations’ annual trade deficits are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs

You keep repeating it but you never prove it.

Toddster Patriot, all of the goods and service products and particularly all of the labor that directly or indirectly supported the production of any final products, contributed to the production of that final product and were acknowledged by their contributions to the producing nations’ gross domestic products, (GDPs).

The economic differences between domestic goods that have reached their producers’ shipping docks and imported goods that have reached the port dicks of the importing nations’ is acknowledged by the produced products contributions to the producing nations’ GDPs. The entire benefits due to production, (i.e. the entire commercial activity, labor, materials, and other resources that were directly and indirectly dedicated to production of the products were earned and for the benefit of the producing nation.

Prior to the moment that imported goods have reached the importing nations’ docks, their production and shipment have contributed absolutely nothing to the importing nations’ GDPs.

USA purchasers can only spend the same dollar once unless and until they recover that dollar. Their choice that was favorable to foreign producers and shippers was to denial of that favor to USA enterprises.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

This nations growing trade imbalance has been a drag on employment and the economy since the REAGAN administration.

One has to be stupid beyond belief to demand an explanation for why this is a problem.

This nations growing trade imbalance has been a drag on employment and the economy since the REAGAN administration.

It's true, during periods of falling GDP and rising unemployment , the trade balance shrinks.
It's true, during periods of growing employment and rapidly growing GDP, the trade balance grows.
Oops, that doesn't help you prove your claim.

Toddster Patriot, USA's trade deficit of goods has been a drag on employment and the economy each year of the past half century.

In regard to your comment, Refer to message #379.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Someone inquired “a Walmart dollar in China has to be respent in America. Why not tell us what happens to it?”.

Most of those “Walmart dollars” were spent within wealth transfers transactions.

what kind of nutso BS are you talking??? whenever two people exchange goods or services there is a wealth transfer!!!! One person gets money wealth because it makes him better off and another gets goods or services because it makes him better off!

How on earth do you buy something without a wealth transfer????????

Transfers of wealth are not factors within the calculation of GDPs; (i.e. they contribute absolutely nothing to USA’s GDP). Thereafter the ownership of those assets previously owned by USA entities, and all future incomes derived from those assets are dedicated to the benefit of foreign entities.

They are not factors of USA’s GDP because they did not cause any additional USA production.

Respectfully, Supposn

Of course that is 100% idiotic!! If I save 50% because I buy everything at Walmart I have 50% more to spend on other things some of which will be made in America or produced in America.

Again, you lack the IQ to understand that you must beat the competition, not rely on liberal government magic to protect industry from competition thus hastening our decline and production of world class goods and services.

This is to say nothing of the Smoot Hawley trade war you would start with such liberal idiocy!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Someone posted "too stupid!! Friedman said there were, in effect, no trade deficits and that you cant cure a nation's non competitiveness with liberal magic!!" with no accompanying link.

If Freidman is being misquoted or quoted out of context, would that be due to an honest error or ignorance or a stupid lie?

Respectfully Supposn

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?????


Main Reference: wikipedia
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not harmful because the currency will always comes back to the country in some form or another."

 

[Supposn]

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?????

Main Reference: wikipedia
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not harmful because the currency will always comes back to the country in some form or another."

Edward Baiamont, Wikipedia is not generally considered as an authoritative source, but often Wikipedia does provide references within their articles. Do you have an authoritative link or reference for this alleged statement by Milton Freidman?

I agree that sales or trades are literally transfers of wealth but on one side of the transactions, actual ownership of goods or performances of services are being provided.

Within the GDP expenditure formula and I suppose within any other formula to calculate, sales transactions are used to account for consumption or use of goods or service products.
(This practice assumes (correctly or incorrectly) in aggregate sales from ‘inventory” will be generally replaced by additional production. It would be extremely less feasible for economists to calculate GDP and not make this assumption.
[This brings to mind your search for other than the expenditures’ formula for calculating GDP? Did you ever find one of them? I’d not be surprised if we found that all alternative formulas didn’t make this or a similar assumption].

Except IPOs or sales of an enterprise’s stocks or bonds from the enterprise’s treasury accounts, such security transactions do not provide enterprises with a penny of capital to produce additional products. That is why transfers of wealth are other than for the immediate purpose of purchasing products, are not factors of calculating GDP or balances of global trade.

Apparently you’re unaware of this when you continue to referring to U.S. dollars being compelled to eventually return to the USA.
The USA assets that are purchased with those dollars are reflected within nations’ capital accounts and balance of payment accounts. Those (returning) U.S. dollars are not paying for transfers of goods or performances of services are excluded from the calculations of nations’ GDPs and balances of global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Edward Baiamont, I don’t disagree with Romney’s analogy of determining each federal budget spending item’s justification for borrowing its expense from China. This does not even imply we should eliminate spending for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or for U.S. border control.

Similarly most of the dollars spent by U.S. entities purchasing imported goods would have otherwise been spent for USA products. The aggregate of USA’s trade deficit indicates the comparative scale of such diversions and such diversion of USA’s spending indicates less GDP, jobs and median wage than otherwise.
This does not suggest that the USA should not participate in global trade, but if we could reduce our trade deficit without reducing our GDP, we would in effect increase our GDP, numbers of jobs and our median wage’s purchasing power.

This unilateral U.S. market, (not governments) driven Import Certificate proposal would accomplish all of that.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?????

Main Reference: wikipedia
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not harmful because the currency will always comes back to the country in some form or another."[/quote]

Edward Baiamont, Wikipedia is not generally considered as an authoritative source, but often Wikipedia does provide references within their articles. Do you have an authoritative link or reference for this alleged statement by Milton Freidman?

This is like asking for a source to confirm that 2+2=4. Its what I'd expect from a liberal trying to start a trade war and to cripple our country by shielding its industry from competition

I agree that sales or trades are literally transfers of wealth but on one side of the transactions, actual ownership of goods or performances of services are being provided.

so the side that gets money is not getting wealth, wealth that they deem to be of greater value????? How slow are you??

Within the GDP expenditure formula and I suppose within any other formula to calculate, sales transactions are used to account for consumption or use of goods or service products.
(This practice assumes (correctly or incorrectly) in aggregate sales from &#8216;inventory&#8221; will be generally replaced by additional production. It would be extremely less feasible for economists to calculate GDP and not make this assumption.

too stupid!! are you trying to say that if I buy something from Walmart it makes me poorer or richer??r

Those (returning) U.S. dollars are not paying for transfers of goods or performances of services are excluded from the calculations of nations&#8217; GDPs and balances of global trade.

too stupid of course!! If the Chinese want to buy a American car company rather than an American car then the owners of the car company must figure they are wealthier by selling the company. Are you a Nazi who wants to determine whether any and all transactions meet your liberal whacko standards??

Respectfully, Supposn

oh please, a liberal does not respect education and learning so has no respect to speak of.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This unilateral U.S. market, (not governments) driven Import Certificate proposal would accomplish all of that.

Respectfully, Supposn

way too stupid of course, a tariff starts a trade war and cripples our industry by shielding it from international competition. These are both very very bad things that would destroy our GDP.

 

[Supposn]

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?????

Main Reference: wikipedia
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not harmful because the currency will always comes back to the country in some form or another."

Edward Baiamont, Wikipedia is not generally considered as an authoritative source, but often Wikipedia does provide references within their articles. Do you have an authoritative link or reference for this alleged statement by Milton Freidman?

This is like asking for a source to confirm that 2+2=4. Its what I'd expect from a liberal trying to start a trade war and to cripple our country by shielding its industry from competition

Edward Edward Baiamont, I should translate this to mean that you're not able to provide any authoritative link or reference for that would substantiate this alleged statement by Milton Freidman?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?????

Main Reference: wikipedia
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not harmful because the currency will always comes back to the country in some form or another."

Edward Baiamont, Wikipedia is not generally considered as an authoritative source, but often Wikipedia does provide references within their articles. Do you have an authoritative link or reference for this alleged statement by Milton Freidman?

This is like asking for a source to confirm that 2+2=4. Its what I'd expect from a liberal trying to start a trade war and to cripple our country by shielding its industry from competition

Edward Edward Baiamont, I should translate this to mean that you're not able to provide any authoritative link or reference for that would substantiate this alleged statement by Milton Freidman?

Respectfully, Supposn

I guess as a liberal you lack the IQ to look it up?????



Friedman: "The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms "high" wage and "low" wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate?

Consider an extreme case. Suppose that, to begin with, 360 yen equal a dollar. At this exchange rate, the actual rate of exchange for many years, suppose that the Japanese can produce and sell everything for fewer dollars than we can in the United States--TV sets, automobiles, steel, and even soybeans, wheat, milk, and ice cream. If we had free international trade, we would try to buy all our goods from Japan. This would seem to be the extreme horror story of the kind depicted by the defenders of tariffs--we would be flooded with Japanese goods and could sell them nothing.

Before throwing up your hands in horror, carry the analysis one step further. How would we pay the Japanese? We would offer them dollar bills. What would they do with the dollar bills? We have assumed that at 360 yen to the dollar everything is cheaper in Japan, so there is nothing in the U.S. market that they would want to buy. If the Japanese exporters were willing to burn or bury the dollar bills, that would be wonderful for us. We would get all kinds of goods for green pieces of paper that we can produce in great abundance and very cheaply. We would have the most marvelous export industry conceivable"

 

[Stone]

Milton Friedman made those comments in his video series entitled "Free to Choose" that aired on PBS in the 80's

 

[Supposn]

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?????

Main Reference: wikipedia
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, trade deficits are not harmful because the currency will always comes back to the country in some form or another."

Edward Baiamont, Wikipedia is not generally considered as an authoritative source, but often Wikipedia does provide references within their articles. Do you have an authoritative link or reference for this alleged statement by Milton Freidman?

This is like asking for a source to confirm that 2+2=4. Its what I'd expect from a liberal trying to start a trade war and to cripple our country by shielding its industry from competition

I agree that sales or trades are literally transfers of wealth but on one side of the transactions, actual ownership of goods or performances of services are being provided.

so the side that gets money is not getting wealth, wealth that they deem to be of greater value????? How slow are you??

Within the GDP expenditure formula and I suppose within any other formula to calculate, sales transactions are used to account for consumption or use of goods or service products.
(This practice assumes (correctly or incorrectly) in aggregate sales from ‘inventory” will be generally replaced by additional production. It would be extremely less feasible for economists to calculate GDP and not make this assumption.

too stupid!! are you trying to say that if I buy something from Walmart it makes me poorer or richer??r

Those (returning) U.S. dollars are not paying for transfers of goods or performances of services are excluded from the calculations of nations’ GDPs and balances of global trade.

too stupid of course!! If the Chinese want to buy a American car company rather than an American car then the owners of the car company must figure they are wealthier by selling the company. Are you a Nazi who wants to determine whether any and all transactions meet your liberal whacko standards??

Respectfully, Supposn

oh please, a liberal does not respect education and learning so has no respect to speak of.[/QUOTE]

Edward Baiamonte, transfers of wealth are not factors within the narrative or mathematical definitions of nations’ GDPs or global balances of trade. Those definitions are the conventionally accepted by statistician and economist communities throughout the world.
[A transfer of wealth transaction is one where no goods or service products are provided or change hands].

You are not arguing against a fact or opinion. You are arguing against definitions. Are you arguing the definitions are wrong and should be changed, or do you believe they are not the actual definitions of nations’ GDPs or global balances of trade?

You’ve expressed some reluctance to accept the expenditure formula for calculating GDP but you haven’t provided a conventionally accepted alternative formula that is in effect contrary to the expenditure formula.

What you did provide was a formula describing the relationship between GDP and GNP. The formula you provided would be of no use until the GDP or the GNP is first calculated. Can that be done without somehow segregating or eliminating transfers of wealth from their calculations?

I’m uncomfortable if I do not attempt to be respectful and civil. Old men acquire an appreciation for many old fashioned concepts. Please tolerate my civility and I in turn will attempt to bear your insults. I sincerely hope you live long enough to outgrow your incivility.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This nations growing trade imbalance has been a drag on employment and the economy since the REAGAN administration.

One has to be stupid beyond belief to demand an explanation for why this is a problem.

This nations growing trade imbalance has been a drag on employment and the economy since the REAGAN administration.

It's true, during periods of falling GDP and rising unemployment , the trade balance shrinks.
It's true, during periods of growing employment and rapidly growing GDP, the trade balance grows.
Oops, that doesn't help you prove your claim.

Toddster Patriot, USA's trade deficit of goods has been a drag on employment and the economy each year of the past half century.

In regard to your comment, Refer to message #379.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, USA's trade deficit of goods has been a drag on employment and the economy each year of the past half century.

How much of a drag on employment is caused by our oil imports?