• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.

All agree with the obvious. So?

When I say that "at least some humans survived disease in spite of medical ignorance," the point is that medicine nevertheless made improvements in this department and others. You stated that relatively free trade seemed to have contributed to growth worldwide. The connection between both comments is extremely obvious: it's not because you think something works that it excludes the possibility of improving upon it in one way or another.

If so they can be improved on with more inventions and more free trade. Make sense?

In a linear gaussian world, this makes sense. Unfortunately, our reality is plagued with asymmetries, multimodality, fat tails, and nonlinear responses. One thing freer flows of goods and services are more drastic winner-takes-all circumstances. It might not seem like much of an issue, assuming you have little concern over inequalities per se as I suspect you do not, but it has aggregate consequences. One way you can generate inordinately large responses in dynamic systems is when otherwise weakly related parts start to exhibit coordination. In physics, pressure can do that which is why you need a pressured balloon if you want an explosive pop. In economics, it's shared risk exposure and the adoption of similar strategies and freer flows of goods and services might have something to do with this sort of dynamic, though we don't have the models yet to look into that.

If you want an example from financial markets, think about the last crisis. Banks made bond-like securities out of mortgage and consumer credit contracts. Many large investment banks and institutional investors had a lot of those securities in their portfolio. There seems to also have been agency problems in the evaluation of people who contracted mortgages, as well as in the evaluation of the risks of the securities whose cash flows derived from payments to those contracts. A large portion of the financial system was exposed to one type of risk -- and possibly more so than they knew. It didn't matter that some people defaulted on their mortgage. One guy defaults because he got laid off. The other had too much credit card debt. They don't all do it at the same time, for the same reasons or at the same point in their mortgage. The real problem is when housing prices went passed a critical point down. Enough people reacted in the same way, at the same time, just as some of the largest investment banks in the world faced exactly the same margin calls and took the same kinds of actions to raise liquidity.

The same comment about Joe and Jane defaulting on their loans can be made about countries: it's the coordination that makes the difference between the small shocks that stop quickly and the small shocks that become very, very large. If you concentrate wealth and integrate markets worldwide, you get in a situation where this kind of story is more likely.
 
In a linear gaussian world, this makes sense. Unfortunately, our reality is plagued with asymmetries, multimodality, fat tails, and nonlinear responses.

got it so given that reality we need to consider a little communism not a stricter focus on freedom and capitalism????
 
drastic winner-takes-all circumstances. It might not seem like much of an issue, assuming you have little concern over inequalities per se as I suspect you do not, but it has aggregate consequences.

you mean like in China where 800 million were instantly transported to capitalism from starvation to the middle class and 40% of the entire planets poverty was eliminated??
 
so???????? did someone disagree?????????

Arguing against modern medicine on the ground that humans survived before its advent is an example of the same kind of reasoning you used previously. You moved from "free markets benefit our societies" to "no intervention can possibly improve upon it."

Got it so given that reality we need to consider a little communism not a stricter focus on freedom and capitalism????

When someone says maybe you should ponder the consequences of policies instead of brushing everything not purely libertarian, it does not follow that we should forcibly acquire the means of production through collective force. There is a world of difference between the kinds of policies that are used in Europe, the United States or Canada and the kind of policies that were in place behind the Iron Curtain. Raising the specter of communism is at best hyperbolic, if not a malign intent to substitute fear to reason.

In a very simple environment, more of what produced improvements will always produce further improvements. In the real world, that can lead you to shoot yourself in the foot.

you mean like in China where 800 million were instantly transported to capitalism from starvation to the middle class and 40% of the entire planet's poverty was eliminated??

I meant growing systemic risks and agency problems related specifically to the concentration of wealth and the decrease of competitiveness in many markets. I never said capitalism never had good consequences; in fact, I have more than often pointed out some of those same facts myself to people who apparently don't know markets helped pull millions of people out of dirt around the world.
 
Last edited:
. You moved from "free markets benefit our societies" to "no intervention can possibly improve upon it."

.
I did?? Show us or admit to an act of legerdemain!
 
Raising the specter of communism is at best hyperbolic, if not a malign intent to substitute fear to reason.

What planet have you been on??????? Sanders /Warren etc etc support the the Green New Deal Great Depression and UHC. They are openly communistic!!!! Do you even read the papers???
 
In a very simple environment, more of what produced improvements will always produce further improvements. In the real world, that can lead you to shoot yourself in the foot..

Did you notice that China has had 40 years of 8% growth thanks to Republican capitalism??
 
markets helped pull millions of people out of dirt around the world.

helped??? you mean instantly caused don't you??????so what are your proposals for more Republican capitalism?? Do you have any???
 
... My comment also underscores a problem with this thread: you're all asking the wrong question. From a practical standpoint, the question is how to modulate trade policy. You don't have a hand on any component of GDP, except perhaps government spending (usually, with a delay).
TheEconomist, browsing through some old discussions, this of your comments caught my attention. A nation’s net spending is its entire net spending which includes its consumers, enterprises, and governments’ net expenditures. For whatever are individual is a nations’ annual net expenditures, trade surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their annual GDPs more than otherwise; (i.e. their global balances of trade modified their gross domestic products).

I’m among the proponents of the proposed improved species of Import Certificates trade policy described in Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”. It’ not pure free trade but it’s less government and more market driven; granting government minimum policy discretion.
Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia , Respectfully, Supposn
 
How many times must I repeat myself? Imports count as consumption, and are subtracted to reflect domestic production. Imports do not reduce GDP.
Kushinator, a nation’s net spending is its entire net spending which includes its consumers, enterprises, and governments’ net expenditures. For whatever are individual is a nations’ annual net expenditures, trade surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their annual GDPs more than otherwise; (i.e. their global balances of trade affected their gross domestic products). Trade deficit nations spent more for products than the value of all goods and services that they produced.
Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia , Respectfully, Supposn
 
Kushinator, a nation’s net spending is its entire net spending which includes its consumers, enterprises, and governments’ net expenditures. For whatever are individual is a nations’ annual net expenditures, trade surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their annual GDPs more than otherwise; (i.e. their global balances of trade affected their gross domestic products). Trade deficit nations spent more for products than the value of all goods and services that they produced.
Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia , Respectfully, Supposn

You're repeating the same refuted nonsense.
 
You're repeating the same refuted nonsense.
[QUOTE="Kushinator, your responses to my posts offer no contrary facts or logical arguments. Respectfully, Supposn
 
your responses to my posts offer no contrary facts or logical arguments. Respectfully, Supposn

Already been addressed years ago. That you refuse to adhere to reality is not of my concern.
 
Over the past year, Tesla's stock has risen 600 percent, and the company's profitability is hovering around one percent.
Such is the economy built by financial capital, and then they are surprised when everything goes to the abyss due to a relatively short quarantine period during a pandemic.
 
Back
Top Bottom