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.
Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.
I believe you'll find creditable 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.
Additionally, they do not refute that due to such “crowding out”, USA's domestic production was less than otherwise, and that in turn was net detrimental to USA's numbers of jobs.
Many creditable economists contend that the proportional differences between USA's annual GDP and our trade deficits are too small to have materially affected our domestic production, (i.e. the detrimental affects of our annual trade deficits are of lesser economic significance). But they do not refute that due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, our annual GDPs have been less than otherwise.
I agree with other credible economists that contend that due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, the lesser numbers of jobs and their lesser aggregate payroll amounts were of economic significance.
Furthermore, I'm among those contending that Nation's balances of trade understated their effects upon their nation's GDP; net international trades' amounts of contributions to trade surplus nations' and detriments to trade deficit nations' GDPs, understate their actual effects upon their individual nations' domestic production.
Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.
I believe you'll find creditable 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.
Additionally, they do not refute that due to such “crowding out”, USA's domestic production was less than otherwise, and that in turn was net detrimental to USA's numbers of jobs.
Many creditable economists contend that the proportional differences between USA's annual GDP and our trade deficits are too small to have materially affected our domestic production, (i.e. the detrimental affects of our annual trade deficits are of lesser economic significance). But they do not refute that due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, our annual GDPs have been less than otherwise.
I agree with other credible economists that contend that due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, the lesser numbers of jobs and their lesser aggregate payroll amounts were of economic significance.
Furthermore, I'm among those contending that Nation's balances of trade understated their effects upon their nation's GDP; net international trades' amounts of contributions to trade surplus nations' and detriments to trade deficit nations' GDPs, understate their actual effects upon their individual nations' domestic production.
Twice in one day for this one.
The mostly broadly accepted definition of GDP.
GDP = Consumer Spending + Business Investment + Government Spending + Net of Exports (exports - imports).
Using tariff for trade war with China is a bad idea. That’s thinking China too much, ignoring domestic impacts. “Economists” who support that idea must be idiots, not even politicians. We’d seen stock market down in 2018, Dow still can not get above 26,000.
Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.
I believe you'll find creditable 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.
Additionally, they do not refute that due to such “crowding out”, USA's domestic production was less than otherwise, and that in turn was net detrimental to USA's numbers of jobs.
Many creditable economists contend that the proportional differences between USA's annual GDP and our trade deficits are too small to have materially affected our domestic production, (i.e. the detrimental affects of our annual trade deficits are of lesser economic significance). But they do not refute that due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, our annual GDPs have been less than otherwise.
I agree with other credible economists that contend that due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits, the lesser numbers of jobs and their lesser aggregate payroll amounts were of economic significance.
Furthermore, I'm among those contending that Nation's balances of trade understated their effects upon their nation's GDP; net international trades' amounts of contributions to trade surplus nations' and detriments to trade deficit nations' GDPs, understate their actual effects upon their individual nations' domestic production.
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.
Trade deficits do matter, net trade is in our best GDP calculations. It's just wantonly absurd for anyone to claim the trade deficits don't matter or amount to much..
Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.
I believe you'll find creditable 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. ...
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.
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?
May be okay for you, I want the cites, otherwise it was inappropriate to include it in the thread title. IMO of course.
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.
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.
