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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.
U.S. enterprises’ gains are to be enabled to remain competitive and in business. by remaining competitive and they additionally gain increased sales volumes.

Wage earning families benefits due to 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

Unless a nation already enjoys full employment, an annual aggregate trade deficit reduces the nation’s GDP more than otherwise.

I've already shown you our oil imports increase GDP.

Would we have a larger GDP if we produced 20 million barrels a day domestically?
Of course!
Would our economy be crushed if we continue current production while cutting imports to zero?
Of course!

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

Prove it.

This trade proposal is of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes with foreign goods within or beyond our borders.

Of course it is. Excluding those enterprises that use imported inputs.

If you consider importers and exporters as a single global trade industry, this proposal is not detrimental to any USA industry.

If you consider a tail to be a leg, my dog has 5 legs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It increases our GDP and the purchasing power of the median wage and is of net benefit to wage earning families.

Respectfully, Supposn

too stupid!! how do trade wars, higher prices, and shielding our country from competition do anything but destroy our country. Ever wonder why tariffs have come down steadily since the Smoot Hawley Great Depression and WW2????

 

[Supposn]

....................I've already shown you our oil imports increase GDP.

Would we have a larger GDP if we produced 20 million barrels a day domestically?
Of course!
Would our economy be crushed if we continue current production while cutting imports to zero?
Of course!..........................

Toddster Patriot, imports NEVER increase GDP. Lack of oil is detrimental to GDP. This proposal would not hinder or encourage imports of petroleum.

Petroleum is inconsequential to this proposal. The assessed values of globally traded goods are reduced by the value of specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to the globally traded goods.

A tanker full of crude oil is assessed at an adjusted value of zero. The value of a gasoline filled tanker’s cargo is reduced by the estimated value of crude integral to that gasoline.
The entire economic differences between USA’s domestic and imported goods occur prior the goods reaching the shipping docks of their USA producers or their USA ports of entry.

Products economically differ to the extent of which nations’ goods and services contributed or otherwise supported the production of each product in question. From the instance an imported product enters the USA, there are little or no additional economic differences between it and a similar domestic product.

The entire benefits of production are earned by the producers. Nations’ annual trade deficits are AWAYS immediately (more than otherwise) detrimental to their GDPs. But this axiom that’s applicable to nation’s aggregate annual global trade doesn’t consider consequences of individual critically scarce mineral materials.

Specifically listed scarce mineral materials integral to goods are excluded from the goods’ assessed values because (if the drafters of the IC act realize the possible benefits of including such minerals), the advantages would not justify risking the consequences of their scarcity.
The advantage or disadvantage of petroleum being subject to this trade proposal is inconsequential if we’ve already decided the extent of risk is unjustified.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

...............................
This trade proposal is of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes with foreign goods within or beyond our borders.
Of course it is. Excluding those enterprises that use imported inputs.

Toddster Patriot, Importers must surrender ICs for the values of their entire foreign products entering the USA.
Importers of foreign produced components surrender ICs for the values of those components.

Increased prices paid by USA purchasers due to ICs are less for products to the extent that they’re produced within the USA with USA components. They pay more only to the extent that they’re produced with foreign components. This is of some advantage to USA producers.

Global open market value of ICs acquired by exporters of USA goods are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports. Exporters of USA goods acquire ICs for the entire value of those goods regardless of any foreign components. (Remember ICs have been surrendered to import those foreign components). This is of some advantage to USA goods sold beyond our borders.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

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

Toddster Patriot, I wish I could quantify and prove the numbers of USA jobs and the median wage’s purchasing power lost due to our trade deficits.

Because I’m unable to do so does not make what we believe to be a logical axiom to be false. Are you aware of any contradicting proof?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

every family and every town suffers a loss when competition in the next town or next country has a better price/quality ratio. This is called capitalism. It is how products improved from the stone age to here.

Why are liberals opposed to progress?? Would they be happy if their interference gave us a soviet standard of living?

See why we are 100% a liberal will be slow??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

....................I've already shown you our oil imports increase GDP.

Would we have a larger GDP if we produced 20 million barrels a day domestically?
Of course!
Would our economy be crushed if we continue current production while cutting imports to zero?
Of course!..........................

Toddster Patriot, imports NEVER increase GDP. Lack of oil is detrimental to GDP. This proposal would not hinder or encourage imports of petroleum.

Petroleum is inconsequential to this proposal. The assessed values of globally traded goods are reduced by the value of specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to the globally traded goods.

A tanker full of crude oil is assessed at an adjusted value of zero. The value of a gasoline filled tanker’s cargo is reduced by the estimated value of crude integral to that gasoline.
The entire economic differences between USA’s domestic and imported goods occur prior the goods reaching the shipping docks of their USA producers or their USA ports of entry.

Products economically differ to the extent of which nations’ goods and services contributed or otherwise supported the production of each product in question. From the instance an imported product enters the USA, there are little or no additional economic differences between it and a similar domestic product.

The entire benefits of production are earned by the producers. Nations’ annual trade deficits are AWAYS immediately (more than otherwise) detrimental to their GDPs. But this axiom that’s applicable to nation’s aggregate annual global trade doesn’t consider consequences of individual critically scarce mineral materials.

Specifically listed scarce mineral materials integral to goods are excluded from the goods’ assessed values because (if the drafters of the IC act realize the possible benefits of including such minerals), the advantages would not justify risking the consequences of their scarcity.
The advantage or disadvantage of petroleum being subject to this trade proposal is inconsequential if we’ve already decided the extent of risk is unjustified.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, imports NEVER increase GDP.

Bull-oney.

Petroleum is inconsequential to this proposal.

That's great, because the proposal is inconsequential.

The entire benefits of production are earned by the producers.

Wow! Typical protectionist idiocy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...............................
This trade proposal is of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes with foreign goods within or beyond our borders.
Of course it is. Excluding those enterprises that use imported inputs.

Toddster Patriot, Importers must surrender ICs for the values of their entire foreign products entering the USA.
Importers of foreign produced components surrender ICs for the values of those components.

Increased prices paid by USA purchasers due to ICs are less for products to the extent that they’re produced within the USA with USA components. They pay more only to the extent that they’re produced with foreign components. This is of some advantage to USA producers.

Global open market value of ICs acquired by exporters of USA goods are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports. Exporters of USA goods acquire ICs for the entire value of those goods regardless of any foreign components. (Remember ICs have been surrendered to import those foreign components). This is of some advantage to USA goods sold beyond our borders.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddster Patriot, Importers must surrender ICs for the values of their entire foreign products entering the USA.

Yes, I understand the big government mechanism you support.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Toddster Patriot, I wish I could quantify and prove the numbers of USA jobs and the median wage’s purchasing power lost due to our trade deficits.

Because I’m unable to do so does not make what we believe to be a logical axiom to be false. Are you aware of any contradicting proof?

Respectfully, Supposn

I wish I could quantify and prove the numbers of USA jobs and the median wage’s purchasing power lost due to our trade deficits.


That would be nice. Otherwise this....

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

....Is nothing but a feeling.

 

[expat_panama]

...cutting imports to zero? Of course!...

...protectionist idiocy.

Like we're saying on this other thread, the only way we can export goods without importing them is to buy foreign factories--

--and if we do that the protectionists complain about foreign GDP's growing more than ours...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...cutting imports to zero? Of course!...

...protectionist idiocy.

Like we're saying on this other thread, the only way we can export goods without importing them is to buy foreign factories--

--and if we do that the protectionists complain about foreign GDP's growing more than ours...

Even Buffett admits his proposal is much like a tariff. Calling it something else trick illiterate fools like Supposin into thinking its something else, something new and creative to which careful consideration should be given.

Supposin admits he has not ever read Friedman. He needs to start with his ABCs of free trade.

 

[expat_panama]

...Buffett admits his proposal is much like a tariff. Calling it something else trick illiterate fools like Supposin into thinking its something else, something new and creative to which careful consideration should be given.

Supposin admits he has not ever read Friedman. He needs to start with his ABCs of free trade.

I was hoping the problem was just lack of education, but I'm leaning toward the idea he's made an absolute choice of belief that runs contrary to all experience.

People have done that a lot since the dawn of humankind. The fact that over the centuries humanity has still been able to raise forth and ever advancing civilization (imho) proves there is a God. I mean, we sure as hell can't give people like Supposin' the credit.

 

[Supposn]

......................... Even Buffett admits his proposal is much like a tariff. Calling it something else trick illiterate fools like Supposin into thinking its something else, something new and creative to which careful consideration should be given.

Supposin admits he has not ever read Friedman. He needs to start with his ABCs of free trade.

Edward Baiamonte, Import Certificates share some similarities to tariffs and tigers share some similarities to house cats. The point is if you wish to discuss tigers, it’s best to discuss tigers.

When adversaries of Import Certificates replace ICs with tariffs within their arguments, it indicates they're unable to effectively argue against ICs. Tariffs ain't ICs.

You are favorably impressed with Friedman’s writing. What has Freidman written that explicitly compares Import Certificates to free trade or tariffs? What has he written that explicitly discusses the relationship between trade deficits and the GDP?

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Supposn]

...........I was hoping the problem was just lack of education, but I'm leaning toward the idea he's,(Supposn) made an absolute choice of belief that runs contrary to all experience.

People have done that a lot since the dawn of humankind. The fact that over the centuries humanity has still been able to raise forth and ever advancing civilization (imho) proves there is a God. I mean, we sure as hell can't give people like Supposin' the credit.

ExPat_Panama, you’ve had a great deal of experience with Import Certificates?

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Supposn]

...cutting imports to zero? Of course!...

...protectionist idiocy.

Like we're saying on this other thread, the only way we can export goods without importing them is to buy foreign factories--

--and if we do that the protectionists complain about foreign GDP's growing more than ours...

Interesting; you offer your own or someone else’s trade proposal, claim it doesn’t work, and then from all of that you conclude for some creditable reason that Import certificates (which have no obvious relationship to whatever you were discussing ) is not creditable. If you’re opposed to ICs, argue ICs.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Supposn]

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

every family and every town suffers a loss when competition in the next town or next country has a better price/quality ratio. This is called capitalism. It is how products improved from the stone age to here.

Why are liberals opposed to progress?? Would they be happy if their interference gave us a soviet standard of living?

See why we are 100% a liberal will be slow??

Edward Baiamonte, the members of the U.S. Constitutional convention were well aware that the economic interests between states can and often do conflict with each other. That’s the logic that led them to grant federal supreme jurisdiction over all interstate commerce.

Similarly the immediate interests of USA principle global trade participants diverge from our nation’s best interests. Any enterprise that can cut their labor costs by outsourcing should do so but that’s not always to our nation’s benefit and very often increases our rates of unemployment and/or reduces the median wage’s purchasing power. Lower priced imported goods do not compensate wage earning families for our trade deficit’s detriment to our GDP and median wage.

Edward, why are you so intent upon reducing the purchasing power of USA’ median wage and increasing our nation’s rates of unemployment, Why do you want to drive our median wage and per capita GDP down to Haitians’ per capita level? Why do want to punish wage earning families?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

...you offer your own or someone else’s trade proposal...

If you're imagining that I'm offering some proposal for government run trade, then please also imagine my regretting the action and repenting. Let's go back to talking about what exists in reality. You said when you started this thread that you are--

...a proponent of Warren Buffett’s concept to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods...

--so let's look at just what it is that you're trying to decrease:

Frankly, none of us can see anything here we don't like. Whatever it is that you're objecting to and wanting to fix is something that 'ain't broke'.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That’s the logic that led them to grant federal supreme jurisdiction over all interstate commerce.

Of course as an perfect illiterate liberal you don't know any better. The commerce clause was put in to promote free trade between states, not to put in anti-free trade tariffs between the states!!!!!!!!


"For nearly a century thereafter (that is, after Gibbons), the Court's Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and very often increases our rates of unemployment

of course thats perfectly stupid and liberal!!

over time international trade has grown and grown but of course our unemployment rate is not increasing and increasing. If there was a relationship it would be obvious and we would have banned trade a long time ago.

If one county can grow bannanas our employment goes up by buying them rather than by growing them ourselves. Its called comparative advantage. Why not start with Econ 101 or read Friedman so you get the basics down.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

Similarly the immediate interests of USA principle global trade participants diverge from our nation’s best interests.

of course thats perfectly idiotic!! Our interests and their are identical. We all want to buy the cheapest and best products from anywhere in the world. Try telling Americans that stupid Hawley Smoot trade war liberals have taken over and now they can only buy from 6 billion or 5 billion or 1 million and that will somehow be good for their standard of living.


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

The golden rule is, the more you trade with the richer you get, the fewer you trade with the poorer you get.

Making sense now??