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.
Blah, blah, blah, same old drivel and you can't even name one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving
Credible by whose standards?
His. He has no training or experience in Economics or Business or Marketing or Finance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving
Any links to the papers written by these "credible economists" stating this opinion or do we take your word for it?
He's going to give a link to a Pukipedia article he wrote about Import Certificates.
His lame argument is predicated entirely on the false belief that $1 of Imports equals $1 of GDP, in spite of the fact that in the history of Earth, that has never been true for any country.
In the US, $1 of Imports generates up to $20 in GDP, and sometimes more than that.
Take plastic kitchen utensils. They're $0.05 each factory to shelf. The Dollar Tree sells them for $1 each, so $1 of Imports is 20 plastic kitchen utensils that create $20 in GDP.
He just can't wrap his brain around that.
He also doesn't understand that for each country, Domestic GDP is capped, largely due to inherent limitations in population.
Assume Domestic GDP in the US is capped at $14 TRILLION. You import $600 Billion in goods and generate $3 TRILLION in GDP.
Are you better off or worse off?
Clearly, you're better off.
Even if you exported absolutely nothing, your NET GDP is $16.4 TRILLION and you're still better off.
He doesn't understand trade-offs, either.
You're manufacturing plastic kitchen gadgets and electronic goods. Electronic goods generate more profit, enhance people's lives, may be exported for more profit, and workers are paid more.
You want to expand your production capacity for electronic goods, but you can't, because you don't have the labor.
The smart move is to off-shore plastic kitchen gadgets. Let China, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Romania or India make them.
That frees up labor to increase the production capacity for electronic goods.
There are no losers here. Everyone's a winner.
He fails to understand that in order to produce everything Americans want, you would need to more than double the population of the US to more than 750 Million people, just in the hope of having sufficient labor to produce everything.
Labor is not about numbers, it's about skill-sets, and the government identifies 800+ skill-sets.
Take doctors.
All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons, nor could they be, because surgery isn't and never will be part of their skill-set.
Only a fraction of doctors have the surgeon skill-set, but not all want to be surgeons, so there's even fewer surgeons. Janitors cannot teach surgeons, only other surgeons can teach surgeons, but teaching is a separate skill-set unto itself that few people possess, and even fewer surgeons possess the teaching skill-set, and of those, even fewer who actually want to teach. So, there are inherent limitations for most skill-sets, and there's no way to get around that.
So, yeah, you might have 157 Million workers and another 6 Million looking for work, but not all of them have the manufacturing skill-set, and of those that do, not all want to work in manufacturing regardless of the wage paid, and then how many of those are in the vicinity of a manufacturing facility to actually work?
Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Blah, blah, blah, same old drivel and you can't even name one. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving
Credible by whose standards? Any links to the papers written by these "credible economists" stating this opinion or do we take your word for it?
If you're going to cite them in the topic, you really should have something to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
SuiteLiving, no, I do not ask you to take my word for it.
Can find many, or some, or any creditable economists that refuting due to USA's annual trade deficits, the nation's domestic production was less than otherwise; (i.e. the nation's domestic products (more than otherwise), were net “crowded out” of all, [our USA domestic plus foreign] marketplaces? The ball's in your court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
SuiteLiving, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were refuting my statement.
I've stated in effect it's extremely rare, or scarcely, or never has a credible economist ever refuted such an assertion.
It's unreasonable to ask me to seek and extract citations for examples of what I believe to be extremely rare if they do exist.
... His lame argument is predicated entirely on the false belief that $1 of Imports equals $1 of GDP ... In the US, $1 of Imports generates up to $20 in GDP, and sometimes more than that. ...
Mircea, I never stated that an additional dollar of the nation's imports generates an additional dollar of their GDP. The imports do not generate a single penny to the importing nation's GDP.
You're continuing the discussion we had within another group, within their post #90, at 1:15 AM, 27Jan2019 where replying to you I posted;01:15 AM
Mircea, similar imported or domestic vehicles being merchandised, distributed, refueled, maintained, repaired in the USA, similarly contribute to USA's GDP.
The entire economic differences between similar USA or imported products cease when the products are under the jurisdiction of the USA governments and are being handled by the USA labor; (which includes non-citizens in the USA).
As imported products are being produced and/or processed by foreign entities, or being shipped to the USA on foreign carriers, they contribute nothing to USA's GDP. But when they “crowded” USA products out of our domestic markets, our chronic annual trade deficits reduced our annual GDPs.
International trades' entire increase of surplus trade nations' annual GDP, or reduction of trade deficit nations' GDP are actually understated by their nation's annual balance of trade. USA's annual trade deficits are the understated amount of our reduced GDP due to our negative balance of international trade.
Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs. They indicate the nation has purchased more products than it produced. That's true during nations' good or poor economic years. … .
Why? You’re the one that made the claim/statement. Until you back it up, the ball is squarely in your court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
SuiteLiving, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were refuting my statement.
I've stated in effect it's extremely rare, or scarcely, or never has a creditable economist ever refuted such an assertion.
It's unreasonable to ask me to seek and extract citations for examples of what I believe to be extremely rare if they do exist.
SuiteLiving, If you believe unicorns exist, or some extinct animal has actually survived, then it's you "that must bear the burden of proof".
... His lame argument is predicated entirely on the false belief that $1 of Imports equals $1 of GDP, in spite of the fact that in the history of Earth, that has never been true for any country.
In the US, $1 of Imports generates up to $20 in GDP, and sometimes more than that.
... He also doesn't understand that for each country, Domestic GDP is capped, largely due to inherent limitations in population.
... Assume Domestic GDP in the US is capped at $14 TRILLION. You import $600 Billion in goods and generate $3 TRILLION in GDP.
Are you better off or worse off?
Clearly, you're better off.
Even if you exported absolutely nothing, your NET GDP is $16.4 TRILLION and you're still better off. ...
Mircea, referring to the explanations within posts #14, I never stated that an additional dollar of the nation's imports generates an additional dollar of their GDP. The imports do not generate a single penny to the importing nation's GDP.
If a nation's annual production of goods and services was 14 billion U.S. Dollars, they purchased 14 billion dollars of goods and services, and they experienced a zero balance of international trade, their annual GDP would have been 14 billion dollars.
if a nation's annual domestic production was over 15 billion dollars and they experienced a trade surplus of 1 billion dollars, their purchases would have been something in excess of 16 billion dollars, their annual GDP would have been in excess of 15 billion dollars, and because balances of trade understate international trade's effects upon their individual nation's GDP, more than 1 billion of their nation's domestic production would have been due to their trade surplus.
if a nation's annual purchases were 15 billion dollars of products and they experienced a trade deficit of 0.5 billion dollars, their GDP would have been less than 14.5 billion dollars. They actually lost more than 0.5 billion dollars of domestic production due to their international balance of trade. balances of trade understate international trade's effects upon their individual nation's GDP.
I'll hold off further discussion of international balances of trade understating international trades' effects upon their nation's GDP in abeyance while you guys search for credible economists that refute other economists opposed to USA seeking pure free trade.
I believe you'll find credible economists do not refute that due to USA's annual trade deficits, the nation's domestic production was less than otherwise; (i.e. the nation's domestic products (more than otherwise), were net “crowded out” of all, [our USA domestic plus foreign] marketplaces.
GDP = Consumer Spending + Business Investment + Government Spending + Net of Exports (exports - imports).
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
A trade deficit is just a bookkeeping entry, not a debt that has to be paid. Countries don’t engage in trade, people do. Americans are no more harmed by the trade deficit with Germany than when they have a "trade deficit" with the local grocery store.
It is surprising how many otherwise smart people mistakenly think that an increase in imports (which also means an increase in the trade deficit) lowers GDP! This misperception comes from a shallow understanding of the formula. Since imports (M) are subtracted in the formula, if M gets bigger, GDP must get smaller, right? Wrong!
Imported goods all end up as either C, I, or G because either consumers or the government are consuming them or the imported good is something like a big piece of machinery that ends up in a factory, thereby qualifying as investment (I). Thus, exactly offsetting the negative effect of a new import through the M term is a positive addition to one of C, I, or G.
The only reason imports are subtracted from GDP is that otherwise they would add to GDP which makes no sense since they were not produced in the U.S. The subtraction offsets a previous addition and simply serves to ensure only domestically produced goods and services are counted. After all, the D in GDP stands for domestic.
People should not misconstrue the impact of a trade deficit. Imports don’t lower our economic growth and any trade deficit simply means we will shortly be receiving some foreign investments like a BMW Plant or something else.
Trade deficits are not a sign of economic trouble, and trade surpluses are not necessarily a sign of economic health.
The last time the U.S. ran a trade surplus with the world was 1975, when our economy was in a shambles. The US ran surpluses all through the Great Depression of the 1930s, with both imports and exports lower than 1920s levels.
One of the reasons the United States of America is such a relatively wealthy country is that it maintains a free trade zone among its 50 states.
But shouldn’t Florida help out Minnesota by importing just as many oranges from Minnesota as Minnesota imports from Florida? Trade flows should be unequal. … if you pick any one state in the United States and look at its trade position with respect to other states, you’d see a lot of deficits and surpluses.
There is no more reason to expect that we Americans will over time sell as much to the Chinese as we buy from the Chinese than there is to expect that, say, General Motors will over time sell as much to Goodyear as General Motors buys from Goodyear. And just as General Motors would be foolish to restrict its purchases from Goodyear on the grounds that Goodyear annually spends less on outputs sold by G.M. than G.M. spends on outputs sold by Goodyear, it would be foolish for us Americans to restrict our purchases of outputs sold by the Chinese on the grounds that the Chinese annually spend less on exports from the U.S.
China and the rest of world use dollar to conduct international trade. They need to earn dollar to do so. China is the world's largest trade player, it naturally has a deficit with the US. China wants to eventually replace the US dollar with its own currency in the world, and at that time, there will be no US-China trade deficit, but China will change world order at the same time.
The trade deficit is a byproduct of US dollar role that can be lost, not "being taken advantage of" as Trump and his "economists" said.
SuiteLiving, If you believe unicorns exist, or some extinct animal has actually survived, then it's you "that must bear the burden of proof".
Huh? What title did you give this thread? Where is the link to the “credible economists” saying what you averred in the title of this thread?
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.
