- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,819
- Reaction score
- 281
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
This one line tells me you are not very clear on capital flows between various economic models. Trade deficits in the right condition can be a problem, but it is not wise to say trade deficits are always a problem or "immediately detrimental to their nation's economies." ...
...Besides, in political terms the economics of capital flows is never mentioned. For Trump and Sanders both (even though it is for different political reasons) they suggest that our trade deficit is because of trade agreement fault. While they might be right, if they ignore capital flows then any drastic change via a re-negotiation or some high tax penalty on imports might have a terrible consequences to how and why capital is flowing.
Think about it like this. ...
... People claim they want to increase exports thereby decreasing the trade deficit......But remember that when we trade, we are sending things of real value, like water, trees, steel and lots of other things that we take from the land, our land. These are things of REAL value. Today, other countries are going into their environments in their countries and sending those resources to us. ...
USA’s chronic trade deficits.
Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
There are only two presidential candidates that do not 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
Think about it like this. ...
... People claim they want to increase exports thereby decreasing the trade deficit......But remember that when we trade, we are sending things of real value, like water, trees, steel and lots of other things that we take from the land, our land. These are things of REAL value. Today, other countries are going into their environments in their countries and sending those resources to us. If you just stop and think about it, imports are the REAL wealth, and exports are real expenses.
Trade deficits measure deficits is dollars, but there are other costs that aren't valued in dollars, damage to the environment and human suffering, just to name two. ...
Think about it like this. ...
... Now we could lower the trade deficit by decreasing imports and increasing sales to people here at home that would accomplish the goal, but we'd loose the benifit of less costly products from abroad. Now if the entire point of this exercise is to suggest that a lower trade deficit will lead to more jobs here at home, well then, you can have your cake and eat it to. Because there are ways to decrease unemployment AND continue to enjoy the benefits of other countries sending us their goods at low prices.
I wonder about our trade treaties. It is hard to believe that the WTO would accept such a system, if it were mandatory. Have you looked into that?
Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP and median wage - Page 3 - Defending The Truth Political Forum
USA’s trade agreements.
Guy39, It pleases me that no U.S. international trade agreement has the status of a treaty.
International treaties must be agreed to by the president and a 2/3 senate vote. Unlike a U.S. Executive Order or a U.S. Congressional and Executive agreement,
It is prohibited for any statute or treaty to be contrary to the then existing U.S. constitution. Treaties have legal status superior to federal statutes and equal to clauses in our constitution. I believe all U.S. trade agreements were signed, (subject to six months notice), of our right to terminate USA’s participation to the agreement.
The U.S. constitution gives the president extraordinary powers regarding the conduction of U.S. foreign affairs. President Carter terminated a commitment that was part of the Taiwan Relations Act. (That act’s a congressional-executive agreement (passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president and deals with foreign affairs). Then U.S. Senator from Arizona Goldwater appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for that termination to be reversed.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s policy, (with good reason) has always been to the extent feasible they try to keep political issues at arm’s length from the courts. The Supreme Court refused to hear Senator Goldwater’s case deeming that he did not have the necessary legal status to sue the administration’s determination in this case. (Neither the U.S. Senate or the House had joined Senator Goldwater’s suite).
I’m not a lawyer but this precedent, (which is not the only instance) of a president unilaterally terminating a foreign affairs agreement, seems to imply a great deal.
I believe the president has the unilateral power to terminate any international agreement that’s other than a treaty. It would require the same act or resolution to be passed by both houses for congress to attempt to have the president’s action overturned. If that doesn’t suffice, the congress could only then appeal to the federal courts for a remedy.
The U.S. Supreme Court may decide that that would be primarily a political matter or that due to the president’s extraordinary powers with regard to our foreign relations, they will not hear the case or they may decide the case for or against the president.
Refer to Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Respectfully, Supposn
There is not doubt that the US can legally cancel any treaty. Whether it is smart is quite another matter. People tend not to trust those that reneg on contracts or even on promises.
This one line tells me you are not very clear on capital flows between various economic models. Trade deficits in the right condition can be a problem, but it is not wise to say trade deficits are always a problem or "immediately detrimental to their nation's economies."
As examples. For a trade deficit to be considered bad it would mean that capital flows ends up as a means of current consumption only instead of investment, which can be in itself inflationary when thinking about a probable underline employment fault. In other words, how demand is being handled and what is the impact on labor. Now, a trade deficit can be considered acceptable if the resulting capital flows heads right into investment. Which may be reflected by rising incomes, rising investment confidence in the general markets, and/or lack of goods and services inflationary pressures.
It all depends on where (and why) capital flows is occurring.
Consumer preference becomes less of an issue assuming trade deficits end up more financed by foreign investment *and* that the dollar value itself is not diminished by the trade direction. Assuming so then even a negative number in the GDP math is not terrible. Mainly because it never comes down to any one year's number, but rather the trend in GDP math. In this case the number on a trend line of (X-I), exports minus imports. Any wild swing in that number on a trend line could indicate a problem, but in itself a trade deficit is not always a bad thing. As long as foreign investment stays strong, as well as investment in the dollar stays strong (and they both are still,) then the negative number applied to GDP ends up less problematic.
Besides, in political terms the economics of capital flows is never mentioned. For Trump and Sanders both (even though it is for different political reasons) they suggest that our trade deficit is because of trade agreement fault. While they might be right, if they ignore capital flows then any drastic change via a re-negotiation or some high tax penalty on imports might have a terrible consequences to how and why capital is flowing.
USA’s chronic trade deficits.
Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
This is wrong of course which explains why he did not say why deficits are detrimental. In fact deficits are self-correcting since for example the Chinese must spend every dollar they get from us, here. If not why would they bother to sell to us at all?
Supposn wrote annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
James972, the Chinese government does not generally sell to us, but entrepreneurs and their enterprises do so.
I don’t doubt that there’s a fuzzy line between those with government and those with enterprises that have significant influence upon and within the government. This should be understandable to those with even slight familiarity with governments.
Individual trade transactions are agreements between individuals that expect to derive gain for themselves or for their enterprises. What’s to the advantage of individuals may and often do diverge from the consequences upon their societies.
[I.E. All USA purchasers of cheaper foreign goods gain financially but that doesn’t fully compensate for USA’s trade deficits’ effects upon our numbers of jobs and our wage levels.
Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nation’s economy. Regardless of the nation’s economic condition within the year, the nation’s production, (GDP) and numbers of jobs, was less than otherwise; (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced a trade deficit). Lesser GDP and jobs are also reflected by lesser median wage than otherwise.
The accrued detriments of trade deficits would to some extent be mitigated if the trade deficits were due to importing production supporting goods and services. In such cases we should expect lesser future deficits due to greater future production. This certainly is not the case with USA’s consistent annual trade deficits of goods that have exceeded half centurie's duration.
We know you disagree with all I’ve posted but you’re unable to specific what points you find faulty and explain what you believe to be their failings.
If you had even briefly scanned the referred to “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” paragraphs in Wikipedia’s “Balance of trade” article, you would have been able to post more than your vague inexplicable criticism.
Supposn
actually you said deficits are bad but clean forgot to explain why. Why not try??
I object to protecting and thus crippling our industriesYou know that you disagree with the concepts but you do not know precisely what you specifically object to
… and (you contend) USA’s consistent trade deficits of global goods every year in excess of a half century has been net beneficial to USA's economy because …..?I object to protecting and thus crippling our industries
… and (you contend) USA’s consistent trade deficits of global goods every year in excess of a half century has been net beneficial to USA's economy because …..?
You want to know why protecting and crippling our industries is bad??? Because then they are not world class and then our country is not either and then we will be defeated economically and then militarilyYou believe otherwise but you’re unable to explain how and why
You want to know why protecting and crippling our industries is bad??? Because then they are not world class and then our country is not either and then we will be defeated economically and then militarily
XIV. Article XII
A. Text of Article XII
Article XII*: Restrictions to Safeguard the Balance of Payments
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article XI, any contracting party, in order to safeguard its external financial position and its balance of payments, may restrict the quantity or value of merchandise permitted to be imported, subject to the provisions of the following paragraphs of this Article.
2. (a) Import restrictions instituted, maintained or intensified by a contracting party under this Article shall not exceed those necessary:
(i) to forestall the imminent threat of, or to stop, a serious decline in its monetary reserves, or
(ii) in the case of a contracting party with very low monetary reserves, to achieve a reasonable rate of increase in its reserves.
Due regard shall be paid in either case to any special factors which may be affecting the reserves of such contracting party or its need for reserves, including, where special external credits or other resources are available to it, the need to provide for the appropriate use of such credits or resources
(b) Contracting parties applying restrictions under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph shall progressively relax them as such conditions improve, maintaining them only to the extent that the conditions specified in that sub-paragraph still justify their application. They shall eliminate the restrictions when conditions would no longer justify their institution or maintenance under that sub-paragraph.
3. (a) Contracting parties undertake, in carrying out their domestic policies, to pay due regard to the need for maintaining or restoring equilibrium in their balance of payments on a sound and lasting basis and to the desirability of avoiding an uneconomic employment of productive resources. They recognize that, in order to achieve these ends, it is desirable so far as possible to adopt measures which expand rather than contract international trade.
The use of Import Certificates are intended for a particular and not a general use, as indicated in Article 12 of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs ans Trade) supervised by the WTO.
Do you really think that Import Certificates were intended for a long-term cure to America's negative Balance of Payments? Or that they would somehow prevent further unemployment in certain industries.
My reading of the text does not indicate that at all ....
____________________________________
USA’s chronic trade deficits.
Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nations’ economies.
There are only two presidential candidates that do not 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
Nobody is a political orphan. As much as our own opinions vary from others, there are many more like minded people out there that you can associate with without even knowing it .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?