USA’s chronic trade deficits

[Supposn]

USA’s chronic trade deficits.

Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
There are only two presidential candidates that do actually reject and/or effectively avoid giving any credence to the problem of USA’s chronic global annual trade deficits. Nether Mr. Donald Trump or Senator Bernard Sanders offer any explicit proposal to significantly reduce USA’s annual global trade deficits.

I’m a political orphan; there’s no candidate worthy of support.

I’m among the proponents of USA adopting a specific unilateral Import Certificate policy for conducting our global trade of goods. It is a primarily market rather than government driven policy that’s entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
And/or
The paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP”
within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

^Protectionism by another name.

[Supposn]

^Protectionism by another name.

FJ1200, apparently you have not googled Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.

The policy described within Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”. The proposal’s not absolutely pure free trade but it certainly is pure competitive free enterprise. It’s primarily market rather than government driven and entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.
The proposal grants the USA and foreign governments less authority (than they have and continue exercising) as they intervene within USA enterprises’ global trade transactions.

I would hope you would also find some things of interest in the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, apparently you have not googled Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.

But I have. The last four or so times you've brought up the same topic and threads. My comment stands.

[Supposn]

But I have. The last four or so times you've brought up the same topic and threads. My comment stands.

Trump & Sanders acknowledge the extent of USA’s chronic trade deficits’ harm.

FJ1200, I suppose your prior posts similarly failed to find and explain any specific points’ faults within the explicitly described concept. Specifity and explicitly are beyond your abilities?

All laws, regulations or proposals should stand or fall upon its own merits.

Your only objection to “Import Certificates” is your contention that it is a “protectionist” policy?
I fully agree that it is net advantage of USA employees, job seekers, and any enterprises that are derive net gain from increases of USA’s GDP or numbers of jobs or median wage’s purchasing power.
We are proponents of this protectionist trade policy because it’s to USA’s near and long term net advantage.

Proponents of the policy support it because:
(1) It would be to some advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or attempts to compete with foreign goods anywhere in the world.
(2) If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the proposal is not of detriment to any USA industry.
(3) Other than enterprises that are legally bound or are granted some significantly more favorable treatment from foreign entitles, the proposal’s not detrimental to any USA enterprise.
(4) The policy is consequentially an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports.
(5) The proposal’s entire direct costs are eventually paid by USA purchasers of foreign goods; the proposal has no detrimental effect upon the federal budget.
Increases of import prices to USA purchasers’ or decreases of USA goods’ prices to foreign purchasers due to this trade policy are subjectively much more determined by markets rather than by governments.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

Trump & Sanders acknowledge the extent of USA’s chronic trade deficits’ harm.

FJ1200, I suppose your prior posts similarly failed to find and explain any specific points’ faults within the explicitly described concept.

trump and sanders are wrong on many things. Regardless my prior posts did not fail as you weren't able to dispute the links I posted and you fell back into your habit of merely repeating your assertions. I respectfully direct you back to your other redundant threads. :)

[Supposn]

trump and sanders are wrong on many things. Regardless my prior posts did not fail as you weren't able to dispute the links I posted and you fell back into your habit of merely repeating your assertions. I respectfully direct you back to your other redundant threads. :)

FJ1200, we cannot “refute a link” but we can provide specific facts and/or logical arguments refuting or question the opinions or logic or statements expressed within the link.

You can direct me back to my prior threads but you remain unable to find and explain any specific points’ faults within the explicitly described concept of transferable Import Certificates. You’re unable to be specific and explicit.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

Correction to this thread's 2:11 PM post of 22Mar2016. The word "subjectively" should have been "substantially".


Trump & Sanders acknowledge the extent of USA’s chronic trade deficits’ harm. ...
... Proponents of the policy support it because:...
... (5) The proposal’s entire direct costs are eventually paid by USA purchasers of foreign goods; the proposal has no detrimental effect upon the federal budget.
Increases of import prices to USA purchasers’ or decreases of USA goods’ prices to foreign purchasers due to this trade policy are substantially more determined by markets rather than by governments.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, we cannot “refute a link” but we can provide specific facts and/or logical arguments refuting or question the opinions or logic or statements expressed within the link.

You can direct me back to my prior threads but you remain unable to find and explain any specific points’ faults within the explicitly described concept of transferable Import Certificates. You’re unable to be specific and explicit.

Respectfully, Supposn

My bad. You were unable to refute the specific facts and logical arguments provided in links in previous threads. All your answers are in those threads.

[Supposn]

Posted by Supposn:
FJ1200, we cannot “refute a link” but we can provide specific facts and/or logical arguments refuting or question the opinions or logic or statements expressed within the link.
You can direct me back to my prior threads but you remain unable to find and explain any specific points’ faults within the explicitly described concept of transferable Import Certificates. You’re unable to be specific and explicit.
Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////
Posted by FJ1200:
My bad. You were unable to refute the specific facts and logical arguments provided in links in previous threads. All your answers are in those threads.
////////////////////////


My bad. You were unable to refute the specific facts and logical arguments provided in links in previous threads. All your answers are in those threads.

FJ1200, you have yet to specify a single specific point within a single specific thread that you find fault with. If and when you ever cite such a point, I would have difficulty responding if you couldn’t explain the specific fault you perceived. You remain unable to be specific and explicit.

You cannot put up and will not shut up; I'm losing my patience.

Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, you have yet to specify a single specific point within a single specific thread that you find fault with. If and when you ever cite such a point, I would have difficulty responding if you couldn’t explain the specific fault you perceived. You remain unable to be specific and explicit.

You cannot put up and will not shut up; I'm losing my patience.

Supposn

Poor baby. I've identified plenty of points; you're bad quoting jobs don't make that any less true. Your insistence that we strive for "balanced trade" is an unproven ideal. Your plan as I've stated before is just protectionism by another name.

(http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/18/two-cheers-for-a-big-u-s-trade-deficit/#16bba0791aab)Two Cheers For A Big U.S. Trade Deficit (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/18/two-cheers-for-a-big-u-s-trade-deficit/#16bba0791aab)
Trade imbalances don’t harm the economy. Lower trade deficits have accompanied low levels of economic growth. During the Great Depression, for example, the U.S. actually ran trade surpluses every year. By contrast, real GDP since 1980 grew 3.5 times faster when the deficit rose than when it declined, as a study by the Cato Institute notes (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tpa/tpa-045.pdf). Over the same period, employment, manufacturing, and the stock market all also increased the fastest alongside a widening trade gap.
Phony fears over trade deficits lead to phony “solutions” that end up doing harm. Protectionists who harp on trade deficit fears often propose to subsidize exports, restrict imports, or both. These proposals are bad ideas. Tariffs and quotas keep inexpensive foreign goods out, driving up prices for consumers and costs for businesses. In response to the U.S. import restrictions (and domestic price supports) for sugar, for example, candy makers like Hershey (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=hsy&tab=searchtabquotesdark) and Lifesavers were forced to lay off American workers and move their operations outside the U.S.

[Supposn]

Poor baby. I've identified plenty of points; you're bad quoting jobs don't make that any less true. Your insistence that we strive for "balanced trade" is an unproven ideal. Your plan as I've stated before is just protectionism by another name.

(http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/18/two-cheers-for-a-big-u-s-trade-deficit/#16bba0791aab)Two Cheers For A Big U.S. Trade Deficit (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/18/two-cheers-for-a-big-u-s-trade-deficit/#16bba0791aab)



FJ1200, the fist post of this thread states, “Thus [due to the consequences of nations’ trade balances], ALWAYS the net exporting nations’ GDPs are increased and the net importing nations’ GDPs are decreased more than otherwise”.

I don’t doubt that you’re able to understand what’s written but it’s more convenient for you to disregard it.

Balance of trade is not the only factor that affects their nation’s economy and its effect upon their nation’s economy does not determine the nation’s entire economic condition.

Regardless of a nation’s economic condition within any particular year, the nations economy that year was detrimentally affected (more than otherwise) if it experienced an annual trade deficit.
Similarly that year the nation’s economy was improved (more than otherwise) if it experienced an annual trade surplus.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

Poor baby. I've identified plenty of points; you're bad quoting jobs don't make that any less true. Your insistence that we strive for "balanced trade" is an unproven ideal. Your plan as I've stated before is just protectionism by another name.

(http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/18/two-cheers-for-a-big-u-s-trade-deficit/#16bba0791aab)Two Cheers For A Big U.S. Trade Deficit (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/18/two-cheers-for-a-big-u-s-trade-deficit/#16bba0791aab)



FJ1200, concerning your link’s scenario of Hershey and lifesavers relocating beyond USA’s borders:
No one can state with certainty that those specific factories could have been retained had the Import Certificate policy then been USA’s trade policy. (But within the proposed policy many of such USA producers that have left, would have instead remained in the USA).

The proposed policy is substantially market rather than government driven and the natures of competitive markets exclude certainty.

The proposal does not choose winners or losers among enterprises operating within the USA or among enterprises operating beyond USA borders.
If you consider importing and exporting as a single foreign trade industry, the proposal does not favor or disfavor any USA industry and it is certainly of some benefit to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods anywhere.

What should be understood is USA’s chronic annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to our economy. They reduce our GDP, numbers of jobs and our median wage more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

What should be understood...

I understand that you are unable to speak beyond repeating your rote assertions. You can't even acknowledge that your plan is protectionist at base. Thank goodness we ran trade surpluses during the Great Depression:


Turns out that for only 18 of the 120 months of that dreary decade did the United States run a trade deficit (that is, imported more, value-wise, than it exported). For each of the remaining 102 months of the decade of the 1930s the U.S. ran a trade surplus.On an annual basis, the only year of the decade of the 1930s that the U.S. ran a trade deficit was 1936; in each of the other nine years the U.S. ran a trade surplus.
And for the Depression decade taken as a whole, the U.S. ran a substantial trade surplus. Exports over those economically challenging ten years totaled $26.05 billion while imports totaled only $21.13 billion. In other words, the U.S. trade surplus during the entirety of the 1930s was nearly 19 percent the size of the total value of U.S. exports during that decade.
http://cafehayek.com/2006/12/if_trade_surplu.html

Just think how bad things could really have been. :rolleyes:

[Supposn]

I understand that you are unable to speak beyond repeating your rote assertions. You can't even acknowledge that your plan is protectionist at base. Thank goodness we ran trade surpluses during the Great Depression:


http://cafehayek.com/2006/12/if_trade_surplu.html

Just think how bad things could really have been. :rolleyes:

FJ1200, the first post of this thread states, “Thus [due to the consequences of nations’ trade balances], ALWAYS the net exporting nations’ GDPs are increased and the net importing nations’ GDPs are decreased more than otherwise”.

I suppose you’re able to understand what’s written but it’s more convenient for you to disregard it.

Balance of trade is not the only factor that affects their nation’s economy and its effect upon their nation’s economy does not determine the nation’s entire economic condition.

Regardless of a nation’s economic condition within any particular year, the nations economy that year was detrimentally affected (more than otherwise) if it experienced an annual trade deficit.
Similarly that year the nation’s economy was improved (more than otherwise) if it experienced an annual trade surplus.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, the first post of this thread states...

Let me state how shocked, shocked I say, that you're repeating yourself... again. Your view is simplistic.