U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2019, 05:19 PM
 
1,466 posts, read 764,632 times
Reputation: 392

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm View Post
How odd. That definition of a trade deficits is contrary to he title of this thread. When I suggested that was the definition of a trade deficit in one of your earlier repetitive posts on this subject, you told me it wasn't.
Jiminnm, I suppose you would have posted transcripts of that entire exchange between us, if that occurred as you describe? Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2019, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
11,271 posts, read 3,403,435 times
Reputation: 8486
Off topic, but all those oils in the shales that's caused US oil production to go through the roof the last several years are all light oils. In some cases very light. Some of it is so light and high quality it doesn't even need much refining to turn it into gasoline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
...
The US is blessed with a fairly abundant amount of intermediate and heavy grade oils, but very few light oils of value....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2019, 06:45 PM
 
1,466 posts, read 764,632 times
Reputation: 392
SWFL_Native, the precise definition of a nation’s annual trade deficit is the values of the nation’s imports exceeded that of its exports.
A nation’s annual gross domestic product refers to their net value of goods and service products produced during the year.
The conventional method for calculating GDP is the expenditure formula.
Within the expenditure formula, nation’s net balances of trade contributed to the GDPs of trade surplus and reduced the GDPs of trade deficit nations.

These are facts accepted among all credible economists.

I’ve been accused of having using the term “credible economists" in an unreasonable manner. My accusers have not provided quotes by any economist THEY consider to be credible, that refute the statements made within this post.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2019, 06:49 PM
 
75,655 posts, read 75,072,635 times
Reputation: 52956
Why are you so fixated on something you personally can’t control ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2019, 07:08 PM
 
1,466 posts, read 764,632 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
So would you argue that we don't produce "enough" or that we are consuming "too much" ?
SWFL_Native, I’m stating a fact, rather than arguing. A nation’s annual trade deficit indicates their net purchases of products exceeded the values of their entire production during the year.
Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2019, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,899 posts, read 14,808,128 times
Reputation: 17187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
SWFL_Native, I’m stating a fact, rather than arguing. A nation’s annual trade deficit indicates their net purchases of products exceeded the values of their entire production during the year.
Respectfully, Supposn
Again, you're wrong as usual.

For QTR3 2019 you produced $14.6 TRILLION in goods and services. You exported $2.4 TRILLION in goods and services and imported $3.1 TRILLION in goods and services.

I hope you're not trying to claim that either $2.4 TRILLION or $3.1 TRILLION is greater than $14.6 TRILLION, because that would be really, really stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Off topic, but all those oils in the shales that's caused US oil production to go through the roof the last several years are all light oils. In some cases very light. Some of it is so light and high quality it doesn't even need much refining to turn it into gasoline.
You're talking about Bakkan Shales. There is light and very light oil, and even some condensate there.

The problem is that fracking is only viable when oil prices are at a certain level. If oil prices decrease, then fracking costs too much.

It's not unlike the situation with Illinois Intermediate. Those fields are almost drained. To maintain static pressure to pump, you have to pump water into the oil field. In the Middle East, they use sea-water, because water is way to valuable, but here in the US we stupidly drain our aquifers for that.

Initially, a 40-gallon barrel of oil is 40 gallons of oil, but in less than a decade it's 38 gallons of oil and 2 gallons of water.

You have to remove the water, and you do that in an intermediate step using a processing facility. The facility in Saudi Arabia that was attacked and blamed on Iran was a processing facility. It removes water, sediments, particulate matter and heavy metals like Nickel, Vanadium and Mercury. Middle Eastern oils tend to have a high concentration of Uranium, but North and South American oils don't.

The heavy metals will bond with catalysts in the cracking stills impeding the catalytic process, which is why they must be removed.

When oil prices are about $80/barrel, it's cost-effective to pump Illinois Intermediate, which at this point in the game is about 10 gallons of oil and 30 gallons of water.

Fracking is like that. So long as oil prices are at a certain level, it's cost-effective to frack, but once prices drop, you're selling the oil at a loss, because you can't recuperate your costs.

None of that matters, since Bakkan Shale will be history in 30-40 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2019, 11:17 PM
 
1,466 posts, read 764,632 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Again, you're, [i.e. Supposn's] wrong as usual.

For QTR3 2019 you produced $14.6 TRILLION in goods and services. You exported $2.4 TRILLION in goods and services and imported $3.1 TRILLION in goods and services.

I hope you're not trying to claim that either $2.4 TRILLION or $3.1 TRILLION is greater than $14.6 TRILLION, because that would be really, really stupid. ...
Mircea, post #12 of this thread was my response to your post #11. I didn’t expect you to accept what I posted, but I had hoped you would refer to some credible explanation from some authoritative source. Obviously, you have not done so.

In Wikipedia’s “Gross Domestic Product” and “Balance of Trade” articles, they cite many reference sources which I suppose you wish to avoid. But wouldn’t you feel better about yourself if you understood more of what’s being discussed? Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 10:06 AM
 
3,666 posts, read 2,485,212 times
Reputation: 2877
I thought this was a pretty good brief explanation of trade deficit, from Paul Krugman (from a column on tariffs and deficits).

Quote:
True, at times of high unemployment deficits can cost us jobs. But in normal times they don’t reduce overall employment, nor do they make us poorer.

On the contrary, other countries are sending us valuable goods and services, which we’re paying for with pieces of paper — paper that pays very low interest rates. Who’s winning, again?

Beyond that, however, Trump is completely wrong about what causes trade deficits in the first place. In fact, his own policies have provided an object lesson in the falsity of his vision.

In the Trumpian universe, trade deficits happen because we made bad deals — we let foreigners sell their stuff here, but they won’t let us sell our stuff there. So the solution is to throw up barriers to foreign products. “I am a Tariff Man,” he proudly proclaimed.

The reality, however, is that trade deficits have almost nothing to do with tariffs or other restrictions on trade. The overall trade deficit is always equal to the difference between domestic investment spending and domestic saving (both private and public). That’s just accounting.

The reason America runs persistent trade deficits isn’t that we’ve given away too much in trade deals, it’s that we have low savings compared with other countries.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/o...p-deficit.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 10:59 AM
 
3,008 posts, read 1,968,807 times
Reputation: 6779
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Why are you so fixated on something you personally can’t control ?

It’s like the saying goes, over-caution is the language of the poor. What if this happens? What if that happens AND this happens!? Then I’d really be up against it! I might as well not try!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 02:00 PM
 
8,746 posts, read 5,450,501 times
Reputation: 14788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
It’s like the saying goes, over-caution is the language of the poor. What if this happens? What if that happens AND this happens!? Then I’d really be up against it! I might as well not try!!
That's actually a reasonable philosophy for life overall, for the poor, the not-so-poor and the utterly un-poor. Why? Because even if we succeed in our ventures, it might turn out, that the thing which we'd been craving, offers no satisfactions; or it compromises us in some way; or it incurs new expenses and responsibilities. Or, in the pursuit of the dearly-desired thing, we neglect something else, something more worthwhile or satisfying. This is called "opportunity cost". Or, the goal is worthy and attainable, but in attaining it, we've surrendered something crucial. Or even if everything goes perfectly fine with our progress and its outcome, we find ourselves shunned and abandoned by envious peers, by persons who misunderstand, or go from having wished well, to wishing ill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top