Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lowexpectations, excerpted from a post within the thread “A trade deficit indicates the nation consumed more than it produced”: Respectfully, Supposn
You didn’t answer my question as to why you continue to create new threads that are nearly identical to 4-5 previous threads and why you cross post responses.
I don’t care that you close your posts with “respectfully” as you are just contributing to spam nonsense on this topic over and over again
You didn’t answer my question as to why you continue to create new threads that are nearly identical to 4-5 previous threads and why you cross post responses.
I don’t care that you close your posts with “respectfully” as you are just contributing to spam nonsense on this topic over and over again
Lowexpectastions, IMO post #10 completely answered your question regarding the cross-posted responses. Will you consider renaming yourself “Impossible-expectations”? Respectfully, Supposn
Lowexpectastions, IMO post #10 completely answered your question regarding the cross-posted responses. Will you consider renaming yourself “Impossible-expectations”? Respectfully, Supposn
It’s doesn’t answer the question in the least. You quoted someone in this thread multiple times when they hadn’t participated in the thread. You’ve also continue to create essentially the same thread over and over again without traction so you must quote post that don’t exist to bump the thread and try to generate some traffic
It’s doesn’t answer the question in the least. You quoted someone in this thread multiple times when they hadn’t participated in the thread. You’ve also continue to create essentially the same thread over and over again without traction so you must quote post that don’t exist to bump the thread and try to generate some traffic
Lowexpectations, all posts that I quoted are existing post. Many group's rules prohibit promotion of other groups. I refrain from doing so in all of my postings to any group. Respectfully, Supposn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Customs of polite posting?
we are do not all share the same opinions regarding everything. People have their own ideas concerning politeness and civility when posting.
I’m now in midst of correspondence with Lowexpections within the Economics forum. I hadn’t responded to Lowexpections complaint regarding multi threads on the same topic, because I consider his complaint to be of some merit.
I do believe remaining within the topic of a thread improves the quality of correspondence. Lowexpections is dissatisfied with my answer.
Respectfully, Supposn
I refrain from referencing Google for every acronym that I'm unfamiliar with.
If explaining what you're referring to is not worthy of your time, it's likely to be unworthy of anyone else's consideration. Respectfully, Supposn
I spent time explaining in your other thread. I showed you why your simple view that reducing net imports in the C+I+G+NX equation improves Y is flawed and cannot be done without also reducing NX, Y, or I. I’m not doing it again.
You claim to have a solution for a problem that most economists don’t think is a problem. When I asked you to explain how the impacts of your tariff differ from the impacts of other tariffs with regards to the global economy, you have given me nothing. The answer is likely that there is no difference.
You’re asking me to embrace your solution, but you’ve never taken a college level class in macroeconomics. A fundamental understanding of how the global economy works is critical to this discussion and it’s apparent that you lack this information. All of your information seems to have come from reading on one side of a very narrow topic. You need more knowledge.
How can we trust that you have any idea what you’re talking about?
Great, yet one more thread where you wax poetically with pedantic musings about something you not only don't understand, you aren't even educated or experienced enough to find the data you need to support your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Unlike tariffs, REGARDLESS of how small of price additions to USA purchasers of imported goods, this policy will extremely significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our numbers of jobs and our payroll amounts more than otherwise.
You have repeatedly failed or refused to show how trade deficits are harmful.
Regurgitating the same failed nonsense is not proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
I’m concerned regarding the reduction of jobs and their wages that due to annual trade deficits.
You haven't proven jobs or wages have been reduced.
The US imported $528 Million in rattan in 2014, and generated $4.35 Billion in sales.
I just debunked your claims.
See? That's called evidence.
For each $1 of Rattan imports, $8.24 in GDP was generated.
You still can't wrap your brain around the fact that $1 of Imports ≠ $1 of GDP.
The ratio of imports/exports in terms of dollar-value is 0.80 so $1 of Rattan imports still generated $6.59 in GDP.
That is a hands-down win for America.
As I debunked you on another thread, the US could export 500,000 units and import 300,000 units, in which case the US exported more than it imported.
But, alas, you're hung up on dollar-value, because you have no understanding of anything.
Standard of Living is difficult to quantify in terms of dollars, but if $1 of imports increases Standard of Living by $1.10 then it's a win, whether the quantity of imports is greater than the quantity of exports and whether the dollar-value of imports is greater than the dollar-value of exports.
When you can post actual numbers as evidence to support nonsense, let us know.
And, you still have given the name of even one economist who supports your nonsense.
Lowexpectastions, IMO post #10 completely answered your question regarding the cross-posted responses. Will you consider renaming yourself “Impossible-expectations”? Respectfully, Supposn
In response to a question about posting same topic over and over again and repeatedly referencing other posts as source, you have responded with a reference to another post (#10) in this thread by you that in turn references a quote by you from a completely different thread by you on same subject?
This whole topic has ran its course and is a useless discussion despite all these attempts at constantly reviving it failing
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
