Trump or no Trump: Get ready for globalization's next phase.

VanceMack said:

:lamo TED graphs.... :lamo

Click to expand...

"TED?" Are you incapable of reading?

It's FRED -- it's the St Louis Federal Reserve, which offers graphs of government data.

Here is your 'real world'.

Click to expand...

lol

Forecasts by the Boston Consulting Group constitute the "real world?" Who knew?

Did you even read your own link?

First of all, it's predicting a 22% growth in auto output -- with a 0.2% increase in auto industry jobs. (Adding 15,000 workers to the 6,200,000 current auto workers.)

Yet again, you are incapable of distinguishing output from jobs.


Second, it is telling you exactly what I said:

Employment. In our analysis of Industry 4.0’s impact on German manufacturing, we found that the growth it stimulates will lead to a 6 percent increase in employment during the next ten years. (See Exhibit 4.) And demand for employees in the mechanical-engineering sector may rise even more—by as much as 10 percent during the same period. However, different skills will be required. In the short term, the trend toward greater automation will displace some of the often low-skilled laborers who perform simple, repetitive tasks. At the same time, the growing use of software, connectivity, and analytics will increase the demand for employees with competencies in software development and IT technologies, such as mechatronics experts with software skills. (Mechatronics is a field of engineering that comprises multiple engineering disciplines.) This competency transformation is one of the key challenges ahead.

They're not saying "there will be 6% growth in manufacturing employment." They're saying that the growth that results from automation will lead to a 6% increase in all types of employment, most of which falls into the "other" category. Engineers in particular will be in high demand.

The authors then go on to point out that workers must upgrade their skills, in order to keep up with the changing economy.

Please try to pay more attention to your own links next time.

Political Science majors face a mountain of student loan debt and are #10 on the underemployment scale.

Click to expand...

According to....?

Oh, and I'm not denying that STEM students have better job prospects. I'm only pointing out that their prospects are better than you understand, and you vastly exaggerate the downsides of a college education -- with no sources. Of course.

As to students who can't complete a degree, that doesn't change anything -- except that we need to adjust our educational system to be more oriented towards vocational training. That's what I've been advocating, and is fully compatible with the idea that we need to improve skills.

Visbek said:

"TED?" Are you incapable of reading?

It's FRED -- it's the St Louis Federal Reserve, which offers graphs of government data.



lol

Forecasts by the Boston Consulting Group constitute the "real world?" Who knew?

Did you even read your own link?

First of all, it's predicting a 22% growth in auto output -- with a 0.2% increase in auto industry jobs. (Adding 15,000 workers to the 6,200,000 current auto workers.)

Yet again, you are incapable of distinguishing output from jobs.


Second, it is telling you exactly what I said:

Employment. In our analysis of Industry 4.0’s impact on German manufacturing, we found that the growth it stimulates will lead to a 6 percent increase in employment during the next ten years. (See Exhibit 4.) And demand for employees in the mechanical-engineering sector may rise even more—by as much as 10 percent during the same period. However, different skills will be required. In the short term, the trend toward greater automation will displace some of the often low-skilled laborers who perform simple, repetitive tasks. At the same time, the growing use of software, connectivity, and analytics will increase the demand for employees with competencies in software development and IT technologies, such as mechatronics experts with software skills. (Mechatronics is a field of engineering that comprises multiple engineering disciplines.) This competency transformation is one of the key challenges ahead.

They're not saying "there will be 6% growth in manufacturing employment." They're saying that the growth that results from automation will lead to a 6% increase in all types of employment, most of which falls into the "other" category. Engineers in particular will be in high demand.

The authors then go on to point out that workers must upgrade their skills, in order to keep up with the changing economy.

Please try to pay more attention to your own links next time.



According to....?

Oh, and I'm not denying that STEM students have better job prospects. I'm only pointing out that their prospects are better than you understand, and you vastly exaggerate the downsides of a college education -- with no sources. Of course.

As to students who can't complete a degree, that doesn't change anything -- except that we need to adjust our educational system to be more oriented towards vocational training. That's what I've been advocating, and is fully compatible with the idea that we need to improve skills.

Click to expand...

TED...FRED...its the same tactic.

The source cites a 6-10% growth in employment DUE TO MANUFACTURING. Yes...that includes all levels...DUE TO MANUFACTURING. How you think that is somehow a detractor to the argument in support of increased manufacturing is beyond me.

I am not opposed to college education. Ive never suggested college education is bad-quite the opposite. Hiding in college for 4-6 years, running up massive debt only to drop out or to 'earn' a degree in a field you will never use...thats another story. And again...the value of a college education has ZERO to do with the conversation that was being held.

Visbek said:

Only by levying tariffs on imported goods, and by using automation to increase worker productivity (which means fewer jobs).

Neither option will reduce the costs of US-made goods.

No, it won't.

"Import certificates" is just another type of tariff -- and one that only works if every country that wants to do business with the US buys into the scheme.

It won't eliminate the trade deficit, because it also increases the costs of imports. It's also inefficient, because it adds a middle-man to the tariffs. It could even open up manipulation to arbitrageurs, who buy and sell certificates purely for their own profit.

Plus, the trade deficit is not actually a problem, and doesn't actually show that US jobs were "lost." If that was the case, we'd be at 50% U3 unemployment. No, what happens is we get cheaper goods, and when we bother to train our workers properly, they move on to different jobs.

The real issue isn't "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!" It's that we act like we can dip the economy in amber, and keep providing good jobs to people with only a high-school education -- and then complain that we pay our workers too much! Oh, the irony....

Click to expand...

Visbek, I cannot determine from your post if you had referred to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. To the extent that you’re unfamiliar with your subject, you cannot discuss it intelligently.

I’m supposing that you generally understand what you read and you share my understanding and appreciation for how people and their organizations behave within competitive market environments.

Since you made no effort to explain how you reached the conclusions expressed within your post, I’m unable to respond further to your post.

Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Respectfully, Supposn

VanceMack said:

TED...FRED...its the same tactic.

Click to expand...

Uh... no.

TED is a wonkfest lecture series that tries to make innovative ideas sexy.

FRED is a service offered by the St Louis Federal Reserve.

All I'm doing is presenting facts. Calling that a "tactic" does not prove that the data I cited is false. It just shows that you have no grasp whatsoever of the facts.

The source cites a 6-10% growth in employment DUE TO MANUFACTURING. Yes...that includes all levels...DUE TO MANUFACTURING. How you think that is somehow a detractor to the argument in support of increased manufacturing is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Again, you are not reading the article.

They are predicting growth BECAUSE OF AUTOMATION.

They predict a 22% increase in auto output with only a 0.2% increase in auto workers.

Most of the jobs that will be created by the predicted economic growth will not be in manufacturing. Auto and manufacturing jobs will barely increase. The robots will do most of the work.

They explicitly state that low-skill workers will be lose their jobs, and that Germany will need to train its workers. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

This is 100% in line with what I'm saying. We can have job growth with automation -- but it's not going to create manufacturing jobs. It's going to create jobs that require skills and education.

Oh, and a reminder? Germany is currently tuition-free. They might go back to charging tuition, but even if they do it will likely be heavily subsidized, and much cheaper than public colleges in the US.

In short: The article you linked supports my position, not yours. It is absolutely stunning that you can't grasp that, after I pointed it out to you.

I am not opposed to college education. Ive never suggested college education is bad-quite the opposite. Hiding in college for 4-6 years, running up massive debt only to drop out or to 'earn' a degree in a field you will never use...thats another story. And again...the value of a college education has ZERO to do with the conversation that was being held.

Click to expand...

First, you obviously didn't read the article cited in the OP. Richard Baldwin, an economist who worked in the Bush 41 administration, points out that globalization will hit the US regardless of the vain attempts to hold it back; that it may hit educated workers too; that our best option is to retrain workers and keep their skills up to date.

Second, keep your straw men to yourself. I never said that anyone should use college as an excuse to avoid employment. I'm not even pushing college per se. I'm saying that instead of wasting our time squealing about foreign competition, we need to train and retrain Americans. If we don't, they will be left behind by the changes in our economy.

Third, quibbling over topics doesn't prove your point. All it shows is that you have no argument.

Visbek said:

Uh... no.

TED is a wonkfest lecture series that tries to make innovative ideas sexy.

FRED is a service offered by the St Louis Federal Reserve.

All I'm doing is presenting facts. Calling that a "tactic" does not prove that the data I cited is false. It just shows that you have no grasp whatsoever of the facts.



Again, you are not reading the article.

They are predicting growth BECAUSE OF AUTOMATION.

They predict a 22% increase in auto output with only a 0.2% increase in auto workers.

Most of the jobs that will be created by the predicted economic growth will not be in manufacturing. Auto and manufacturing jobs will barely increase. The robots will do most of the work.

They explicitly state that low-skill workers will be lose their jobs, and that Germany will need to train its workers. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

This is 100% in line with what I'm saying. We can have job growth with automation -- but it's not going to create manufacturing jobs. It's going to create jobs that require skills and education.

Oh, and a reminder? Germany is currently tuition-free. They might go back to charging tuition, but even if they do it will likely be heavily subsidized, and much cheaper than public colleges in the US.

In short: The article you linked supports my position, not yours. It is absolutely stunning that you can't grasp that, after I pointed it out to you.



First, you obviously didn't read the article cited in the OP. Richard Baldwin, an economist who worked in the Bush 41 administration, points out that globalization will hit the US regardless of the vain attempts to hold it back; that it may hit educated workers too; that our best option is to retrain workers and keep their skills up to date.

Second, keep your straw men to yourself. I never said that anyone should use college as an excuse to avoid employment. I'm not even pushing college per se. I'm saying that instead of wasting our time squealing about foreign competition, we need to train and retrain Americans. If we don't, they will be left behind by the changes in our economy.

Third, quibbling over topics doesn't prove your point. All it shows is that you have no argument.

Click to expand...

FRED ius a site you go to, load in search parameters that are convenient to your argument, it creates a graph for you, and you can ignore reality and say look at my cool graph! I win!

Now...to manufacturing...seriously. How sad are you guys? We KNOW manufacturing is changing and has changed since the assembly line days of the 70's. However without MANUFACTURING you dont have jobs. Germany TESTIFIES to that reality. The TOP employers in Germany....BMW, Siemens, Daimler, Porsch, Audi, Bosch...are all MANUFACTURERS. And yes...they employ a wide spectrum of people from engineers to assemblymen to marketers....but it is their manufacturing industry that sustained them through the economic crisis where other countries failed and still havent recovered. We see in THIS country...US manufacturing jobs have steadily left, foreign auto manufacturing jobs have increased.

We NEED industry. Industry provides jobs at ALL LEVELS.

VanceMack said:

FRED ius a site you go to, load in search parameters that are convenient to your argument, it creates a graph for you, and you can ignore reality and say look at my cool graph! I win!

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you lose.

FRED doesn't make up data, and neither do I. It doesn't make the data say whatever anyone wants it to say.

It's a simple fact: German manufacturing as a percentage of its labor force has dropped from 40% in 1970, to 22% in 2014. No amount of uninformed deflection changes that fact -- or the reality represented by that fact.

Now...to manufacturing...seriously. How sad are you guys? We KNOW manufacturing is changing and has changed since the assembly line days of the 70's. However without MANUFACTURING you dont have jobs. Germany TESTIFIES to that reality.

Click to expand...

sigh

1) Repetition is not an argument.

2) Germany testifies to the power of automation and strong protections for workers.

3) You show no sign of understanding that manufacturing is changing, is increasingly automated, and may very well go the way of agriculture -- where 2% of the labor force makes everything our nation needs.

4) You have never, not once, not ever, proven that a large number of manufacturing workers is somehow "required" by an advanced nation. Nor can you explain how GDP has continually grown, even as manufacturing employment drops.



Ooops! I actually used facts in an argument. Naughty Visbek!

The TOP employers in Germany....BMW, Siemens, Daimler, Porsch, Audi, Bosch...are all MANUFACTURERS.

Click to expand...

Not even close. Largest German companies:

Rank - Name - Industry
1 - Allianz Worldwide - Insurance
2 - DaimlerChrysler - Consumer Durables
3 - Deutsche Bank Group - Banking
4 - Deutsche Telekom - Telecommunications Services
5 - E.ON - Utilities
6 - Siemens Group - Conglomerates
7 - Munich Re - Insurance
8 - RWE Group - Utilities
9 - Deutsche Post - Transportation
10 - BMW Group - Consumer Durables
11 - Volkswagen Group - Consumer Durables
12 - BASF Group - Chemicals
13 - Commerzbank - Banking
14 - Bayer Group - Chemicals
15 - Metro AG - Retailing
16 - HVB Group - Banking
17 - ThyssenKrupp Group - Conglomerates
18 - Eurohypo - Banking
19 - SAP - Software & Services
20 - Continental - Consumer Durables

FYI, VW owns Audi and Porsche.

And yes...they employ a wide spectrum of people from engineers to assemblymen to marketers....but it is their manufacturing industry that sustained them through the economic crisis where other countries failed and still havent recovered. We see in THIS country...US manufacturing jobs have steadily left, foreign auto manufacturing jobs have increased.

Click to expand...

Germany wasn't saved by hiring people to manufacture. The number of manufacturing employees in Germany has declined slightly in recent years. They were mostly saved because they didn't engage in an absurd austerity program; their citizens didn't participate in the real estate bubble; and the Euro was forever in their favor.

If you look at the chart above, you'll see that the US manufacturing as a percentage of the labor force peaked around 1950. Unless you are more than 60 years old, every recovery, every economic upturn, every good year, was accompanied by a decline in the importance of manufacturing jobs.

Now, let's look at absolute numbers. In which manufacturing employees peaked in 1980. Reagan? Lost manufacturing jobs, so much for morning in America. Clinton boom? Slight uptick. Bush 43 boom? Lost jobs, ending with a massive cratering due to the recession. Obama? Slight increase.

We NEED industry. Industry provides jobs at ALL LEVELS.

Click to expand...

zomg... No. No, it doesn't. Not even close.

The US has been adding millions of jobs for decades, even as manufacturing jobs have declined -- both in absolute numbers, and as a share of the workforce. The same is true for Germany, which is more rapidly automating than the US.

We don't need warm bodies operating the same drill press, over and over. We don't magically produce more lawyers by having more welders in factories. Speculative forecasts by management consulting groups don't qualify as proof.

I'm drawing my conclusions based on decades of data. You, in contrast, ignore facts and fail to understand your own sources.

I'm sure you will respond, but it's pretty clear by now that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, no real data to offer, no coherent analysis, and your position is basically indefensible.

Thanks for playing.

Visbek said:

Sorry, but you lose.
The US has been adding millions of jobs for decades, even as manufacturing jobs have declined -- both in absolute numbers, and as a share of the workforce. The same is true for Germany, which is more rapidly automating than the US.

We don't need warm bodies operating the same drill press, over and over. We don't magically produce more lawyers by having more welders in factories. Speculative forecasts by management consulting groups don't qualify as proof.

I'm drawing my conclusions based on decades of data. You, in contrast, ignore facts and fail to understand your own sources.

I'm sure you will respond, but it's pretty clear by now that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, no real data to offer, no coherent analysis, and your position is basically indefensible.

Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

Again...fun with graphs...but they ignore the facts.
Germany’s Vibrant Labour Market - Make it in Germany
German industry drives their economy.
https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp...2Code= &nuts3Code=&regionName=Nationale Ebene
The biggest companies in Germany in 2015 include, as in previous years, the vehicle manufacturers Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG, and the energy company Eon.
Manufacturing.
https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp...null&mode=shortages&regionName=National Level
Number 2 on the hit parade for available jobs...
Manufacturing

Full circle
Germany's leading industries - Make it in Germany
Manufacturing at all levels drives the economy.

Manufacturing continues to drive the German economy at all levels.

And here is where it gets REALLY funny. YOU list these companies...(which BTW encompass the companies I listed)

Rank - Name - Industry
1 - Allianz Worldwide - Insurance
2 - DaimlerChrysler - Consumer Durables Manufacturing
3 - Deutsche Bank Group - Banking
4 - Deutsche Telekom - Telecommunications Services Manufacturing
5 - E.ON - Utilities Manufacturing
6 - Siemens Group - Conglomerates Manufacturing
7 - Munich Re - Insurance
8 - RWE Group - Utilities
9 - Deutsche Post - Transportation
10 - BMW Group - Consumer Durables Manufacturing
11 - Volkswagen Group - Consumer Durables Manufacturing
12 - BASF Group - Chemicals Manufacturing
13 - Commerzbank - Banking
14 - Bayer Group - Chemicals Manufacturing
15 - Metro AG - Retailing
16 - HVB Group - Banking
17 - ThyssenKrupp Group - Conglomerates Manufacturing
18 - Eurohypo - Banking
19 - SAP - Software & Services
20 - Continental - Consumer Durables

Manufacturing secured German economic stability and it is expected to sustain future growth.

ataraxia said:

The rise of mega corporations like WalMart which have bulldozed like a tank into small towns and neighborhoods and flattened all the small local businesses has been driven by the pure, unregulated free market. They can do that because of efficiencies of scale, not because of any legislation favoring them. Would you do anything about that?

Click to expand...

Horsesh*t! The last thing we have in this country is an unregulated free market. We have a fascist system where corporation purchase the government and its favors outright and then use the government to make slaves and peasants of the lower classes.

Visbek said:

... "Import certificates" is just another type of tariff -- and one that only works if every country that wants to do business with the US buys into the scheme.

It won't eliminate the trade deficit, because it also increases the costs of imports. ... Plus, the trade deficit is not actually a problem, and doesn't actually show that US jobs were "lost. ...

Click to expand...

Visbek, I was wrong; your post does provide some logical reasoning for objections that should be addressed.

The species of Import Certificate policy described in Wikipedia’s article is a unilateral proposal. Due to its substantially more market rather than government driven method for eliminating or almost eliminating its nation’s annual trade deficits of goods, it certainly would increase USA’s GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise in ALL circumstances, (i.e. regardless of other nation’s reactions to USA’s the adopted policy). In will also serve as an indirect but effective price subsidy of USA’s exported goods.

I suppose that you do not perceive Import Certificates advantages because you do not share my appreciation of human behavior within competitive market places. There’s no doubt that people enter mutual agreements because they seek their individual best interests. But there are many acts and agreements within laws of all levels of governments within the USA that are deemed to be illegal within those governments’ jurisdictions because they were deemed to be of grave harm to their society. USA’s trade deficits do us such economic harm.

You incorrectly state that trade deficits are not a problem. Certainly, increasing import prices to USA consumers is economically detrimental but annual trade deficits are a drag upon their nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs. Anything detrimental to their nations numbers of jobs is also to some extent detrimental to the nation’s median wage.

USA’s aggregate employees and their dependents benefit from cheaper imported goods but those benefits do not fully compensate for trade deficits detrimental effects upon their incomes.

USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods have been consistently net detrimental to our economy for more than a half century. They are particularly detrimental to employees, their dependents and to others to the extent that they are dependent upon enterprises that themselves are indirectly dependent on their customers’ USA employment derived incomes.
That description entails a major proportion of USA’s entire population.

Adopting the Import Certificate policy would be economically net beneficial to any nation that otherwise suffers from annual trade deficits of goods.

Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

Respectfully, Supposn

Visbek said:

... Plus, the trade deficit is not actually a problem, and doesn't actually show that US jobs were "lost". ...

Click to expand...

Excerpted from Wikipedia’s “Balance of Trade” article:

“Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.
Exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of their nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic production (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP”. …
… Refer to:
“Expenditure Method Definition | Investopedia
BEA : Methodology Papers
http://www.britannica.com/topic/gross-domestic-product”.

If a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise. This FACT remains true regardless of the nation’s economic performance during any year.
Unless a nation enjoyed “full employment”, a lesser GDP is reflects upon and is reflected upon by the nation’s lesser numbers of jobs during that same year. I’m unaware of any nation that enjoyed full employment while experiencing an annual trade deficit.

Respectfully, Supposn

VanceMack said:

Again...fun with graphs...but they ignore the facts.
Germany’s Vibrant Labour Market - Make it in Germany

Click to expand...

Good grief.

Yet again, you don't read your own sources. From that link: "Germany has achieved a remarkable turnaround.... Experts agree that there are two main reasons for this: first, government reforms to increase flexibility on the labour market; and second, the impact of demographic change, which means a dwindling supply of skilled workers to replace those entering retirement." Nothing on that page credits manufacturing employment.

The second link doesn't say anything about manufacturing driving Germany's economy. What it says is that health care and trade in November 2015.

Your third link mostly talks about how engineers are in big demand in Germany right now. And you missed #1 -- Health, social work, education -- along with #3 and 4 (wholesale and retail trade; maintenance and repair of motor vehicles; Provision of temporary workers).

And here is where it gets REALLY funny. YOU list these companies...(which BTW encompass the companies I listed)

Click to expand...

sigh

You said: "The TOP employers in Germany....BMW, Siemens, Daimler, Porsch, Audi, Bosch...are all MANUFACTURERS." (bold added.)

Somehow, you missed the fact that the biggest employer is an insurance company; how 12 of the top 20 have nothing to do with manufacturing; how banks were 4 of the top 20.

Manufacturing secured German economic stability and it is expected to sustain future growth.

Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, nothing you posted proves anything of the sort.

I'm Supposn said:

Visbek, I was wrong; your post does provide some logical reasoning for objections that should be addressed.

Click to expand...

It does, doesn't it?

I suppose that you do not perceive Import Certificates advantages because you do not share my appreciation of human behavior within competitive market places.

Click to expand...

I do. I can also see through a smokescreen.

Certificates just creates new tariffs, and a secondary market to avoid those tariffs. As long as Americans buy more foreign goods than it exports, though, we'll have a trade deficit. And unless certificates can magically discourage import purchases, encourage exports, and generate tariffs without sparking retaliation, it's not going to work.

You incorrectly state that trade deficits are not a problem.

Click to expand...

That's because they aren't.

In fact, they're often a healthy sign in the US, because it means that Americans are buying more goods. We normally see higher trade deficits when consumers have more confidence.

Also, nations are not always thrilled when one of their trading parters exports a ton of goods, and imports very little. Germany is an example; they got lucky with the way the Euro favored them for years, and they enriched themselves at the expense of other EU members. Those other nations are not thrilled with the results, including Merkel throwing her weight around.

Certainly, increasing import prices to USA consumers is economically detrimental but annual trade deficits are a drag upon their nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs.

Click to expand...

It lowers GDP. It doesn't necessarily mean fewer jobs.

For example, let's say Freedonia has no oil, but is good at providing services. It isn't passing up on jobs just because it's importing oil.

You also ignore how trade is ultimately beneficial for both parties -- which is why both parties agree to trade. The US doesn't need to waste its human resources making socks, if they can be made more efficiently in China -- or by machine. Our consumers shouldn't have to spend double for socks, just because we like the idea of employing Americans to perform brainless jobs.

USA’s aggregate employees and their dependents benefit from cheaper imported goods but those benefits do not fully compensate for trade deficits detrimental effects upon their incomes.

Click to expand...

The numbers do not back up that claim.

For example, LFPR is not correlated to the percentage of the labor force engaged in manufacturing:



Neither is GDP (see post above).

Foreign labor isn't killing wages. What's killing wages is that the top earners -- executives, hedge fund operators, rentiers etc -- are capturing all the economic benefits of higher productivity. E.g. corporations have spent decades giving CEOs bigger and bigger compensation packages, while slashing pay and benefits for the rank-and-file. Switching expensive pensions to cheaper 401(k)s; they make employees pay more for health care; they push salaried employees to work longer hours and work from home...

USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods have been consistently net detrimental to our economy for more than a half century.

Click to expand...

Then why has GDP continued to increase? Why were we able to basically crack the nut of controlling inflation? Why did LFPR increase from 1970 to 2001? Why has foreign investment in the US stayed at high levels? Why hasn't the value of the dollar spun out of control?

Did trade deficits cause the 2007 recession? The Dot Com implosion? The 1987 stock market crash?

And as is so often the case, why are you ignoring automation? It has essentially the same effect on the labor market -- it eliminates jobs. Are you going to slap taxes on robots, too?

Adopting the Import Certificate policy would be economically net beneficial to any nation that otherwise suffers from annual trade deficits of goods.

Click to expand...

The only way that's possible is if it is net negative to any nation that has a trade surplus.

So yes, good luck telling the rest of the planet "you can't trade with us anymore unless it's a net positive for us, and net negative for you." They'll do what Trump is already encouraging them to do -- trade with each other, and reduce the global influence of the US.

I'm Supposn said:

Excerpted from Wikipedia’s “Balance of Trade” article:

“Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know.

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. GDP is merely a measure of total output. It's not a measure of jobs, or wages, or wage growth, or any of a dozen measures of economic health.

For example, let's say that we have a miraculous robotic breakthrough in 2017. It increases output starting January 1st 2018 by $100 billion, while eliminating 1 million jobs outright. Based on an average $50k/yr salary, and assuming none of those people get jobs in 2018, that's a loss of $50 billion in GDP -- for a net gain of $50 billion.

Unless a nation enjoyed “full employment”, a lesser GDP is reflects upon and is reflected upon by the nation’s lesser numbers of jobs during that same year.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not when we have automation, multiplier effects, economic downturns, productivity growth, and so forth.

I’m unaware of any nation that enjoyed full employment while experiencing an annual trade deficit.

Click to expand...

US, Canada, Australia.

How about nations with trade surpluses that aren't doing well? Russia, Brazil, Italy, Japan, Ecuador, Iraq, Iran, Congo, Puerto Rico, Chad....

Visbek said:

Good grief.

Yet again, you don't read your own sources. From that link: "Germany has achieved a remarkable turnaround.... Experts agree that there are two main reasons for this: first, government reforms to increase flexibility on the labour market; and second, the impact of demographic change, which means a dwindling supply of skilled workers to replace those entering retirement." Nothing on that page credits manufacturing employment.

The second link doesn't say anything about manufacturing driving Germany's economy. What it says is that health care and trade in November 2015.

Your third link mostly talks about how engineers are in big demand in Germany right now. And you missed #1 -- Health, social work, education -- along with #3 and 4 (wholesale and retail trade; maintenance and repair of motor vehicles; Provision of temporary workers).



sigh

You said: "The TOP employers in Germany....BMW, Siemens, Daimler, Porsch, Audi, Bosch...are all MANUFACTURERS." (bold added.)

Somehow, you missed the fact that the biggest employer is an insurance company; how 12 of the top 20 have nothing to do with manufacturing; how banks were 4 of the top 20.



Unsurprisingly, nothing you posted proves anything of the sort.

Click to expand...

Its funny how you see only what you want to see.
Factor 2: The strength of German industry

"Although Germany is not immune to economic developments in the rest of Europe and elsewhere, its highly competitive industry can include itself among the winners of globalization. Moreover, there is every indication that German industry will retain this strong position in the future. After all, German companies supply innovative and competitive products, particularly in the global markets of the future, such as infrastructure, environmental protection, and conservation of resources."
"The biggest companies in Germany in 2015 include, as in previous years, the vehicle manufacturers Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG, and the energy company Eon."

And with 10 (Continental is also manufacturing)of the top 20 and 9 of the top 15 industries ALL involving manufacturing, your continued insistence that manufacturing is irrelevant is in a word...goofy.

Visbek said:

... It's also inefficient, because it adds a middle-man to the tariffs. It could even open up manipulation to arbitrageurs, who buy and sell certificates purely for their own profit. ...

Click to expand...

Visbek, I would expect the certificates to be brokered over the internet and other security exchange markets. It’s much cheaper and less expensive than having the government do it.
Free competitive markets are generally desirable. I’m not opposed to free enterprise but annual trade deficits are certainly economically detrimental to their nations.

Increased costs to importers of goods into an Import Certificate nation are determined by the global markets’ price rates for that nation’s transferable certificates.

[The certificates were originally issued to exporters of the nation’s goods that chose, (they were not required) to pay the government fees which defray government’s direct costs due to the trade policy. The face values of the certificates are equal to the values of export shipments and determine the fee’s proportional amount. If no fee is paid for an export shipment, that shipment’s not assessed and no certificate is issued].

Importers of goods into an Import Certificate nation are required to surrender certificates with face values covering the assessed values of their shipments of imported goods; surrendered certificates are cancelled.

The minimum sustainable global market rates for a nation’s Import Certificates are the government’s rates charged for goods exported from their nation.

The maximum global market rates are limited to what additional prices the nation’s purchasers are willing to pay for imported goods. If the nation’s purchasers balk at paying more, the market prices of certificates will fall.

Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
Respectfully, Supposn