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

[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?

Toddster Patriot, it’s conceivable that the detriment to USA’s GDP due to USA’s aggregate trade deficit of goods is much greater that the proportion of that could be attributed to petroleum’s proportion of those goods. It’s conceivable that due to the unfeasibility of economical substitution, there may be no net detriment due to USA’s global trade of petroleum.

Because petroleum is scarce and may be critical, we would expect that it would be among the specific minerals on the scarce and precious mineral list. The economic risk for not excluding scarce or precious minerals from the list would be unjustified.

We include precious minerals on that list because the greatest economic harm due to trade deficits is the losses of jobs and/or affects upon our median wage. If ICs were issued for gem encrusted cast gold paper weights, it would be effectively issuing ICs for payments of cash. That undermines the proposed policy’s purpose.

[The exclusion of these mineral materials do not contradict that annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs. Similarly, although expenditures for medical treatment or insurance are justified, spending continues to be detrimental to a financial position].


Why then bother to quantify the economic drag due to our global trade of petroleum or any other scarce minerals that are specified within the scarce or precious minerals list?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[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?

Toddster Patriot, our NET detriment of due only to petrioleum trade could conceivably be wrong.
The drafters of this proposal concluded each specifically listed scarce minerals as being subject to this proposal wouldn’t possibly pass benefit/cost analysis if we consider risk as a component of costs.

Why then bother to quantify the economic drag due to our global trade of petroleum or any other scarce minerals that are specified within the scarce or precious minerals list?

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, our NET detriment of due only to petrioleum trade could conceivably be wrong.

Could you rephrase this? It's not clear what you mean.

Why then bother to quantify the economic drag due to our global trade of petroleum or any other scarce minerals that are specified within the scarce or precious minerals list?

Because I'm interested in the claim that,
"Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A transfer of wealth transaction is one where no goods or service products are provided or change hands].

1) you must apologize for being a 100% ignorant liberal with a big mouth despite not having read Friedman

2)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??

 

[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?
Could you rephrase this, (i.e. message #401) ? It's not clear what you mean.

Why then bother to quantify the economic drag due to our global trade of petroleum or any other scarce minerals that are specified within the scarce or precious minerals list?

Because I'm interested in the claim that,
"Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs"

Toddster Patriot, I corrected message #401 with a rewrite. Do you find it to be clearer?
I explained trade deficits’ detriments to their GDPs in messages #388 & 393.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much of a drag on employment is caused by our oil imports?
Could you rephrase this, (i.e. message #401) ? It's not clear what you mean.

Why then bother to quantify the economic drag due to our global trade of petroleum or any other scarce minerals that are specified within the scarce or precious minerals list?

Because I'm interested in the claim that,
"Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs"

Toddster Patriot, I corrected message #401 with a rewrite. Do you find it to be clearer?
I explained trade deficits’ detriments to their GDPs in messages #388 & 393.
Respectfully, Supposn

It’s conceivable that due to the unfeasibility of economical substitution, there may be no net detriment due to USA’s global trade of petroleum.

Thank you.
I think oil imports are a net benefit.

I understand the math behind your claims about trade deficits.
I don't believe you can prove GDP would be larger if we reduced imports.
I'm totally against Buffett's big government plan to reduce imports by making them more expensive. If you want to reduce the trade deficit, make it easier to do business here and make it more profitable to export. And as long as we're going to whine about a number, make it more accurate. Include those things we export that aren't currently counted.

 

[Supposn]

It’s conceivable that due to the unfeasibility of economical substitution, there may be no net detriment due to USA’s global trade of petroleum.

Thank you.
I think oil imports are a net benefit.

I understand the math behind your claims about trade deficits.
I don't believe you can prove GDP would be larger if we reduced imports.
I'm totally against Buffett's big government plan to reduce imports by making them more expensive. If you want to reduce the trade deficit, make it easier to do business here and make it more profitable to export. And as long as we're going to whine about a number, make it more accurate. Include those things we export that aren't currently counted.

Toddster Patriot, Petroleum is inconsequential to this trade proposal or to this discussion thread.GDPs; but you don’t offer a contrary logical argument.

Statistical arguments are unconvincing because they do not resolve the question of what’s cause or effect.

Milton Freidman has been referred to within this thread. I haven’t read Freidman but no one’s offered a quote (that can or cannot be authenticated), which contends annual trade deficits are NOT ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

I have read Greenspan, Bernanke, Samuelson, Ricardo, Adam Smith, Pat Buchannan, and both Mills, (James and John Stewart). I haven’t encountered any writing that refutes the concept.

What did you mean by “make it more accurate. Include those things we export that aren't currently counted”?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Beyond Edward Baiamonte’s incivility is his foolish repeating a question but refusing to address the provided answer.
He questions the assertion that transfers of wealth are not factors within the calculation of gross domestic product, (GDP). That’s “hard wired” into the definition of GDP; this displeases Baimonte.

He asks of the U.S. dollars returning to the USA. He ignores or refutes but is unable to logically confront the response is most of those dollars purchase USA’s assets on behalf of foreign entities. The current and future earnings and benefits derived those assets all belong to the owners of those assets.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s conceivable that due to the unfeasibility of economical substitution, there may be no net detriment due to USA’s global trade of petroleum.

Thank you.
I think oil imports are a net benefit.

I understand the math behind your claims about trade deficits.
I don't believe you can prove GDP would be larger if we reduced imports.
I'm totally against Buffett's big government plan to reduce imports by making them more expensive. If you want to reduce the trade deficit, make it easier to do business here and make it more profitable to export. And as long as we're going to whine about a number, make it more accurate. Include those things we export that aren't currently counted.

Toddster Patriot, Petroleum is inconsequential to this trade proposal or to this discussion thread.GDPs; but you don’t offer a contrary logical argument.

Statistical arguments are unconvincing because they do not resolve the question of what’s cause or effect.

Milton Freidman has been referred to within this thread. I haven’t read Freidman but no one’s offered a quote (that can or cannot be authenticated), which contends annual trade deficits are NOT ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

I have read Greenspan, Bernanke, Samuelson, Ricardo, Adam Smith, Pat Buchannan, and both Mills, (James and John Stewart). I haven’t encountered any writing that refutes the concept.

What did you mean by “make it more accurate. Include those things we export that aren't currently counted”?

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, Petroleum is inconsequential to this trade proposal or to this discussion thread.

I agree oil isn't part of Buffett's big government trade control idea, but it is part of your claim about GDP. Now that you've admitted your broad generalization about trade deficits was incorrect, I'll stop beating your dead horse.

Statistical arguments are unconvincing because they do not resolve the question of what’s cause or effect.

What is Buffett whining about if not the trade statistics?

What did you mean by “make it more accurate"?

Not everything we produce and sell is included in the stat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Beyond Edward Baiamonte’s incivility is his foolish repeating a question but refusing to address the provided answer.
He questions the assertion that transfers of wealth are not factors within the calculation of gross domestic product, (GDP). That’s “hard wired” into the definition of GDP; this displeases Baimonte.

He asks of the U.S. dollars returning to the USA. He ignores or refutes but is unable to logically confront the response is most of those dollars purchase USA’s assets on behalf of foreign entities. The current and future earnings and benefits derived those assets all belong to the owners of those assets.

Respectfully, Supposn

He asks of the U.S. dollars returning to the USA. He ignores or refutes but is unable to logically confront the response is most of those dollars purchase USA’s assets on behalf of foreign entities. The current and future earnings and benefits derived those assets all belong to the owners of those assets.

I thought his claim was those dollars return here, in some way, to purchase things.
If those mean foreigners use the dollars to purchase stocks, bonds, companies, raw materials, whatever, does that make his claim somehow incorrect?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I haven’t read Freidman

This is because you're an illiterate. He was by a factor of ten the most important economist of the 20th Century.


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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Beyond Edward Baiamonte’s incivility

oh come on, I deeply believe in civility but one has to have some standards too; so of course illiterate liberals and snakes are not entitled to much civility.

The current and future earnings and benefits derived those assets all belong to the owners of those assets.

too stupid!!! Fiat bought Chrysler and many companies buy many other companies (10's of thousands a year). Would you have prefered the Chrysler and 10,000 others just disappear????

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

 

[Supposn]

[I agree oil isn't part of Buffett's big government trade control idea, but it is part of your claim about GDP. Now that you've admitted your broad generalization about trade deficits was incorrect, I'll stop beating your dead horse.

Toddster Patriot, the statement is nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs.

It’s conceivable that a nation may recover that loss in the future if it was importing goods that contributed to increasing the nation’s future GDP. It may be the case if the imports where critical to sustaining the nations’ entire future existence. (In such a case it is the very existence rather than its economy that’s at risk).

None of these are the case with respect to USA’s aggregate annual trade deficit or to that portion of our trade deficit that’s attributable to our global trade of goods to the extent that petroleum is integral to those goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs.

1) of course this is not true to begin with but
if you want to reduce trade deficit

a) end the liberal's war on business that makes our goods so expensive


b) end the liberal budget deficit so the Japanese and Chinese will have to buy our goods rather than our liberal's deficts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[I agree oil isn't part of Buffett's big government trade control idea, but it is part of your claim about GDP. Now that you've admitted your broad generalization about trade deficits was incorrect, I'll stop beating your dead horse.

Toddster Patriot, the statement is nations’ annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs.

It’s conceivable that a nation may recover that loss in the future if it was importing goods that contributed to increasing the nation’s future GDP. It may be the case if the imports where critical to sustaining the nations’ entire future existence. (In such a case it is the very existence rather than its economy that’s at risk).

None of these are the case with respect to USA’s aggregate annual trade deficit or to that portion of our trade deficit that’s attributable to our global trade of goods to the extent that petroleum is integral to those goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Are you now claiming that our annual imports of oil are not a net benefit to GDP?

 

[Supposn]

He asks of the U.S. dollars returning to the USA. He ignores or refutes but is unable to logically confront the response is most of those dollars purchase USA’s assets on behalf of foreign entities. The current and future earnings and benefits derived those assets all belong to the owners of those assets.

I thought his claim was those dollars return here, in some way, to purchase things.
If those mean foreigners use the dollars to purchase stocks, bonds, companies, raw materials, whatever, does that make his claim somehow incorrect?

Toddster Patriot, Foreign purchases of USA’s goods and service products are USA exports and contribute to our GDP because they reduce our global trade deficit.

Most of the dollars we’re discussing did not purchase U.S. goods or service products and thus did not contribute to USA’s GDP. They purchase documents of ownership with regard to enterprises or real-estate.
(If any of those dollars would have purchased U.S. products, that would have reduced USA's trade deficit).
Those “returned U.S. dollars” did not contribute to USA’s GDP.

Thereafter all of the income and other benefits derived due to their purchases are for the benefit of their new foreign owners.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He asks of the U.S. dollars returning to the USA. He ignores or refutes but is unable to logically confront the response is most of those dollars purchase USA’s assets on behalf of foreign entities. The current and future earnings and benefits derived those assets all belong to the owners of those assets.

I thought his claim was those dollars return here, in some way, to purchase things.
If those mean foreigners use the dollars to purchase stocks, bonds, companies, raw materials, whatever, does that make his claim somehow incorrect?

Toddster Patriot, Foreign purchases of USA’s goods and service products are USA exports and contribute to our GDP because they reduce our global trade deficit.

Most of the dollars we’re discussing did not purchase U.S. goods or service products and thus did not contribute to USA’s GDP. They purchase documents of ownership with regard to enterprises or real-estate.
(If any of those dollars would have purchased U.S. products, that would have reduced USA's trade deficit).
Those “returned U.S. dollars” did not contribute to USA’s GDP.

Thereafter all of the income and other benefits derived due to their purchases are for the benefit of their new foreign owners.

Respectfully, Supposn

Most of the dollars we’re discussing did not purchase U.S. goods or service products and thus did not contribute to USA’s GDP. They purchase documents of ownership with regard to enterprises or real-estate

And now the "sellers of the documents of ownership" have dollars available to buy U.S. goods or service products.

 

[Supposn]

Are you now claiming that our annual imports of oil are not a net benefit to GDP?

Toddster Patriot, USA’s negative balance of global petroleum trade rather than making some sacrifices and striving for reduction of our petroleum consumption has probably been net detrimental to our GDP.

Our energy use is a separate economic and political issue. The question we're discussing is in regard to USA's annual aggregate trade deficits:

Are they in aggregate ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their GDPs?


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thereafter all of the income and other benefits derived due to their purchases are for the benefit of their new foreign owners.

Respectfully, Supposn

this is absurd and idiotic and 100% liberal. If the Chinese buy a American Car Company the American owners get tons of cash the income and benefits from which accrue to the American owners forever.

Are you a Solyndra Nazi liberal bureaucrat who wants to forbid them from selling the car company to advance their interests as they see fit??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you now claiming that our annual imports of oil are not a net benefit to GDP?

Toddster Patriot, USA’s negative balance of global petroleum trade rather than making some sacrifices and striving for reduction of our petroleum consumption has probably been net detrimental to our GDP.

Our energy use is a separate economic and political issue. The question we're discussing is in regard to USA's annual aggregate trade deficits:

Are they in aggregate ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their GDPs?


Respectfully, Supposn

"Toddster Patriot, USA’s negative balance of global petroleum trade rather than making some sacrifices and striving for reduction of our petroleum consumption has probably been net detrimental to our GDP"

Before we talk about the massive damage that would be caused by the tripling or quadrupling of fuel prices if we suddenly stopped importing foreign oil, let's look at the GDP math.

When the oil hits our shores, the increase in the trade deficit reduces GDP.
A week or so later, after it's refined and consumed, the additional consumption adds to GDP. Right?

Using your formula, the imports actually increase GDP, when you take into account the value added in the refining and distribution process.
So what is your complaint again?

 

[Supposn]

Toddster Patriot, regardless of how you relate the story, global balances of trade have a positive effect upon their GDPs. Due to an annual trade surplus the nation’s GDP will be more and due to an annual trade deficit it will be less than otherwise.

Unless a nation already enjoys full employment, an annual aggregate trade deficit reduces the nation’s GDP more than otherwise. Within my life time only during World War two did USA approach full employment.

For more than the prior half century, USA’s annual balances of global trade have been negative, (i.e. trade deficits) and thus for more than a half century our GDPs have been less than otherwise.

USA enterprises’, (If you as I do accept the concepts of free enterprise’s benefits), pass the benefits of cheaper imported goods onto their customers.
Due to this policy U.S. enterprises’ competing with foreign goods are more enabled to ompete, remain in business. and increase both their domestic and foreign sales volumes.

Wage earning families benefits due to pure free trade's cheaper imported goods do not compensate for the median wage’s loss of purchasing power and the decrease of well paying domestic jobs.

This trade proposal is of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes with foreign goods within or beyond our borders. If you consider importers and exporters as a single global trade industry, this proposal is not detrimental to any USA industry.

It somewhat increases prices of imported goods to USA purchasers and decreases prices of U.S. goods to foreign purchasers. It increases our GDP and the purchasing power of the median wage and is of net benefit to wage earning families.

Respectfully, Supposn