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

[I'm Supposn]

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

They certainly do not contend that nation's annual trade deficits were beneficial to their nation's GDP.
​

I believe you'll find creditable economists do not refute that due to USA's reported annual trade deficits, USA's annual domestic production was less than otherwise because USA's products (more than otherwise), were net “crowded out” of all, [our USA domestic plus foreign] marketplaces.


Due to the reported lesser than otherwise annual domestic production, the nations annual jobs and their payrolls are also considered to have been less than otherwise.

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 nations' balances of trade understated their effects upon their individual nation's GDP; net international trades' amounts of contributions to trade surplus nations' GDPs and detriments to trade deficit nations' GDPs, understate their international balances of trade actual effects upon their individual nation's domestic productions.

Respectfully,Supposn

 

[Kal'Stang]

I don't know what economists actually think on the subject. Don't really care to be honest. I'm just here to comment on one thing. Your use of the words "credible economists".

You used the words "credible economists" 4 times in a very short post. What that shows is that you will only listen to economists that spout what YOU want to believe and that you will ignore and discount any economist that says differently. And it won't matter to you whether they're actually correct or not. In your mind, they never will be no matter what is shown to you for evidence.

 

[Masterhawk]

Yeah, what specifically do you mean by "credible economists"? How do you know whether an economist is credible or not?

I will tell you this: most economists agree that free trade is good for all involved parties.
4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree - The Atlantic

 

[Mycroft]

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

~snipped for space~

It actually doesn't have anything to do with whether an economist is credible or not. It's simple mathematics.

Components of GDP by expenditure

U.S. GDP computed on the expenditure basis.

GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).

Y = C + I + G + (X − M)

Here is a description of each GDP component:

C (consumption) is normally the largest GDP component in the economy, consisting of private expenditures in the economy (household final consumption expenditure). These personal expenditures fall under one of the following categories: durable goods, nondurable goods, and services. Examples include food, rent, jewelry, gasoline, and medical expenses, but not the purchase of new housing.

I (investment) includes, for instance, business investment in equipment, but does not include exchanges of existing assets. Examples include construction of a new mine, purchase of software, or purchase of machinery and equipment for a factory. Spending by households (not government) on new houses is also included in investment. In contrast to its colloquial meaning, "investment" in GDP does not mean purchases of financial products. Buying financial products is classed as 'saving', as opposed to investment. This avoids double-counting: if one buys shares in a company, and the company uses the money received to buy plant, equipment, etc., the amount will be counted toward GDP when the company spends the money on those things; to also count it when one gives it to the company would be to count two times an amount that only corresponds to one group of products. Buying bonds or stocks is a swapping of deeds, a transfer of claims on future production, not directly an expenditure on products.

G (government spending) is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and services. It includes salaries of public servants, purchases of weapons for the military and any investment expenditure by a government. It does not include any transfer payments, such as social security or unemployment benefits.

X (exports) represents gross exports. GDP captures the amount a country produces, including goods and services produced for other nations' consumption, therefore exports are added.

M (imports) represents gross imports. Imports are subtracted since imported goods will be included in the terms G, I, or C, and must be deducted to avoid counting foreign supply as domestic.

Note that C, G, and I are expenditures on final goods and services; expenditures on intermediate goods and services do not count. (Intermediate goods and services are those used by businesses to produce other goods and services within the accounting year.[14])

Gross domestic product - Wikipedia

If imports (M) are greater than exports (X), we have a trade deficit...a negative number. This negative number is added to all of the expenditure (C,I,G). This results in a reduction of what GDP would be without a trade deficit.

If an economist says that trade deficits have no negative effects on GDP, he is simply a liar.

 

[Kushinator]

If an economist says that trade deficits have no negative effects on GDP, he is simply a liar.

The expenditure approach to national income accounting is just that... an accounting metric. It does not tell us anything about how changes in different values affect GDP. I'm going to offer you the chance to do the smart thing... and try to learn something as opposed to pushing an agenda.

 

[Mycroft]

The expenditure approach to national income accounting is just that... an accounting metric. It does not tell us anything about how changes in different values affect GDP. I'm going to offer you the chance to do the smart thing... and try to learn something as opposed to pushing an agenda.

We aren't talking about national income. We are talking about Gross Domestic Product.

For sure, the Expenditure method is one method used to determine GDP, but it is also the most widely used method and it is the one used by the government because accurate data is easier to get.

As far as how changes in different values affect GDP...it's a formula. Changing values and looking at the resulting changes in GDP is the easiest thing in the world.

Moving on...

 

[Kushinator]

We aren't talking about national income. We are talking about Gross Domestic Product.

Go on

:lol:

As far as how changes in different values affect GDP...it's a formula. Changing values and looking at the resulting changes in GDP is the easiest thing in the world.

It's an identity. :lol:

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Yeah, what specifically do you mean by "credible economists"? How do you know whether an economist is credible or not?

I will tell you this: most economists agree that free trade is good for all involved parties.
4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree - The Atlantic

MasterHawk, your interesting link to the Atlantic magazine site refers to the “IGM Economic Experts Panel”. Yes, the panelists responses were as you described them to be. I linked to the article's actual source,
www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade .

[The free trade statement to be considered by a panel of 10 highly credible USA economists selected by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. I do not doubt that the panelist are all credible economists, and I chose not speculate as to the impartiality of the school choosing the panelists.

The school's question we're discussing was, “Question A: Freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment”.

[Note the wording of the question does not refute those contending an annual trade deficit indicates its nation's annual GDP, numbers of jobs, and their aggregate payroll amounts were less than otherwise].

On a scale of 1 through 10, 35 of the responding panelists agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Of the 6 remaining respondents, 2 were uncertain of the answer, and 4 chose not to answer the question.
Some of those experts accompanied their vote with an additional comment.
Four, (4) of those comments did not refer to any detrimental affects due to free trade.

The 13 other comments directly or indirectly referred to to segments of populations that were to some extent detrimentally affected by pure free trade.
I'm a populist that agrees with the contention that “we all do better when we all do better”. I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn

... You, [Supposn] used the words "credible economists" 4 times in a very short post. What that shows is that you will only listen to economists that spout what YOU want to believe and that you will ignore and discount any economist that says differently. And it won't matter to you whether they're actually correct or not. In your mind, they never will be no matter what is shown to you for evidence.

 

[I'm Supposn]

I don't know what economists actually think on the subject. Don't really care to be honest. I'm just here to comment on one thing. Your use of the words "credible economists".

You used the words "credible economists" 4 times in a very short post. What that shows is that you will only listen to economists that spout what YOU want to believe and that you will ignore and discount any economist that says differently. And it won't matter to you whether they're actually correct or not. In your mind, they never will be no matter what is shown to you for evidence.

Kal”Stang, I stated that “Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.
They certainly do not contend that nation's annual trade deficits were beneficial to their nation's GDP”.
I contend that rarely or never did a credible economist deny trade deficit nation's annual GDP was less than otherwise due to their experiencing a negative balance of trade that year.

You can “test” your accusation of my duplicity, by if you can find some credible economists' statements that in effect refute my post.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[James972]

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

best by far to correct trade deficit is to remove liberal constraints on our industry; worst by far is to protect and cripple our industry and make them even less competitive. 1+1=2

 

[I'm Supposn]

Kal”Stang, I stated that “Credible economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP.
They certainly do not contend that nation's annual trade deficits were beneficial to their nation's GDP”.
I contend that rarely or never did a credible economist deny trade deficit nation's annual GDP was less than otherwise due to their experiencing a negative balance of trade that year.

You can “test” your accusation of my duplicity, by if you can find some credible economists' statements that in effect refute my post.
Respectfully, Supposn

Karl' Stang, since February, no member of this group has been able to find a link derived from anyone THEY considered to be a credible economist, contending that a nation's trade deficit has been beneficial to their economy.
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 effects 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.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[OrphanSlug]

Karl' Stang, since February, no member of this group has been able to find a link derived from anyone THEY considered to be a credible economist, contending that a nation's trade deficit has been beneficial to their economy.
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 effects 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.
Respectfully, Supposn

That is because you look at trade deficits as if they exist in a vacuum absent all other economic factors that got us to the point we see today.

And since you look at it this way you probably will continue to talk to yourself... link to Wikipedia articles every so often on "Import Certificates" you added to... and take hollow victory laps linking to your credible economists who themselves realize impacting import / export stats means impacts to every other facet of our economy that you, and your Wikipedia article, refuses to talk about.

Having a negative trade balance is not "detrimental," and even your credible economists do not characterize our GDP as inherently problematic to the point of failure.

Just that things would be different if we were a trade positive nation, but that does not happen with band-aid fixes like your persistently pimped "Import Certificates," which are nothing more than an applied tariffs and taxes that raises the prices of goods and services inside a nation's economy (that by the way in the modern era also does not exist in a vacuum.)

And if you were paying attention, these days we have a President trying to change things in that area and it has been detrimental to several business models... especially farmers.

 

[I'm Supposn]

---Quote (Originally by I'm Supposn)---
… 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 effects 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. …
---End Quote---

That is because you look at trade deficits as if they exist in a vacuum absent all other economic factors that got us to the point we see today.

And since you look at it this way you probably will continue to talk to yourself... link to Wikipedia articles every so often on "Import Certificates" you added to... and take hollow victory laps linking to your credible economists who themselves realize impacting import / export stats means impacts to every other facet of our economy that you, and your Wikipedia article, refuses to talk about.

Having a negative trade balance is not "detrimental," and even your credible economists do not characterize our GDP as inherently problematic to the point of failure.

Just that things would be different if we were a trade positive nation, but that does not happen with band-aid fixes like your persistently pimped "Import Certificates," which are nothing more than an applied tariffs and taxes that raises the prices of goods and services inside a nation's economy (that by the way in the modern era also does not exist in a vacuum.)

And if you were paying attention, these days we have a President trying to change things in that area and it has been detrimental to several business models... especially farmers.

OrphanSlug, Can you provide a link to any economist YOU consider to be credible, contending trade deficits are beneficial to their nation’s economy? The conventional formula for calculating nations’ GDP are increased by their exports and reduced by their imports. Annual trade deficits reduced their nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs and their wages more than otherwise.

Unlike tariffs, the concept of Import Certificates does not choose among foreign nations, or industries, or tangible products; it’s equally applicable to soybeans or tractors. To the extent federal direct expenses due to Import Certificate policy are exceeded by markets behaviors, those differences serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA’s exported goods.

Import certificates is substantially market sensitive and is superior to pure free trade or tariff policies. Lesser demand for USA exports, or USA purchasers’ willingness to pay more for foreign products, effectively increase the indirect price subsidy of USA’s exports. Contrary circumstances would evoke contrary consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[James972]

-]Unlike tariffs, the concept of Import Certificates does not choose among foreign nations, or industries, or tangible products; it’s equally applicable to soybeans or tractors.

either way its a tax on Americans buying stuff that makes them poorer or lowers their standard of living so is really really dumb!!

 

[OrphanSlug]

---Quote (Originally by I'm Supposn)---
… 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 effects 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. …
---End Quote---

OrphanSlug, Can you provide a link to any economist YOU consider to be credible, contending trade deficits are beneficial to their nation’s economy? The conventional formula for calculating nations’ GDP are increased by their exports and reduced by their imports. Annual trade deficits reduced their nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs and their wages more than otherwise.

Unlike tariffs, the concept of Import Certificates does not choose among foreign nations, or industries, or tangible products; it’s equally applicable to soybeans or tractors. To the extent federal direct expenses due to Import Certificate policy are exceeded by markets behaviors, those differences serve as indirect but effective price subsidies of USA’s exported goods.

Import certificates is substantially market sensitive and is superior to pure free trade or tariff policies. Lesser demand for USA exports, or USA purchasers’ willingness to pay more for foreign products, effectively increase the indirect price subsidy of USA’s exports. Contrary circumstances would evoke contrary consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn​

You missed the point, entirely.

I did not say a trade deficit was beneficial, what I said was a trade deficit does not occur in a vacuum and our economy does not operate in one either.

I also said Import Certificates, no matter how you color it up, are nothing more than means to increase the prices of goods and services to the point to equal the cost to cover domestic labor. By effect they are no different than a tariff, or a tax, or any other inflationary and artificial means.

 

[I'm Supposn]

… I will tell you this: most economists agree that free trade is good for all involved parties.
4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree - The Atlantic

MasterHawk, I concur with those “most economists” you referred to. Purchasers of foreign goods are motivated by what they consider to be their own comparative advantage and in almost all such instances, their judgement was correct. Enterprise or household should not produce at greater cost, what it can acquire from others at lesser cost. That’s the concept of comparative advantage.

A trade deficit indicates the nation has imported greater value of products than it has exported. It also indicates the nation has purchased more products than it has produced. Nations’ net balances of international trade contributed to the gross domestic product of trade surplus nations and reduced the GDP of trade deficit nations more than otherwise. Lesser numbers of jobs and amounts of payrolls all accompany a nation’s lesser GDP.

We all benefit from cheaper foreign goods. But many USA enterprises are highly dependent upon the financial conditions of USA’s lower and middle-income families. Those families in turn are highly dependent upon their USA jobs and wages which are net detrimentally effected by USA’s chronic annual trade deficits. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

Yeah, what specifically do you mean by "credible economists"? How do you know whether an economist is credible or not? ...

MasterHawk, can YOU or any other of this group’s members provide a link to what you may consider as a credible economist stating that a trade deficit nation’s annual balance of international trade did not reduce their nation’s GDP more than otherwise?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

You missed the point, entirely.

I did not say a trade deficit was beneficial, what I said was a trade deficit does not occur in a vacuum and our economy does not operate in one either.

I also said Import Certificates, no matter how you color it up, are nothing more than means to increase the prices of goods and services to the point to equal the cost to cover domestic labor. By effect they are no different than a tariff, or a tax, or any other inflationary and artificial means.

OrphanSlug, possibly I did miss your point. I never supposed that international trade occurred in a vacuum, but then what is your point of mentioning that?
If annual trade deficits are not beneficial, can they be economically benign?
If a nation reduces its annual spending for imports doesn’t that provide the same GDP with less spending? If a nation replaced some of its import expenditures with domestic purchases, wouldn’t that increase the nation’s GDP? Is this the point of your trade deficit not occurring in a vacuum comment?

A nation’s annual trade deficit reduced its GDP, numbers of jobs and amounts of payrolls more than otherwise.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Drawdown]

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

They certainly do not contend that nation's annual trade deficits were beneficial to their nation's GDP.
​

I believe you'll find creditable economists do not refute that due to USA's reported annual trade deficits, USA's annual domestic production was less than otherwise because USA's products (more than otherwise), were net “crowded out” of all, [our USA domestic plus foreign] marketplaces.


Due to the reported lesser than otherwise annual domestic production, the nations annual jobs and their payrolls are also considered to have been less than otherwise.

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 nations' balances of trade understated their effects upon their individual nation's GDP; net international trades' amounts of contributions to trade surplus nations' GDPs and detriments to trade deficit nations' GDPs, understate their international balances of trade actual effects upon their individual nation's domestic productions.

Respectfully,Supposn

Not sure you could have shoe-horned another True Scotsman statement into that post.

 

[I'm Supposn]

… I also said Import Certificates, no matter how you color it up, are nothing more than means to increase the prices of goods and services to the point to equal the cost to cover domestic labor. ...

OrphanSlug, no one’s refuting that both tariff or Import Certificate policy would increase prices of goods imported into the USA. We can’t make omelets unless we crack eggs.
But Import Certificates need not and may or may not likely “increase the prices of goods and services to the point to equal the cost to cover domestic labor”.
Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia .

I don’t know if you’re willing to seriously discuss the concept of Import Certificates? We cannot discuss what you may be unwilling to read and consider. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Kushinator]

I'm fairly certain the OP suffers from severe developmental problem, most likely aspergers, because the overwhelming majority of his post history is revolved around the single topic of NIPA identities and import certificates. A quick search regarding I'm Supposn and the word trade.

Having a developmental disorder is not an excuse to spam forums. It's not an excuse to break rules. James, I'm Supposn, and Lafayette have utterly ruined the economics forum by filling it with threads pertaining to the same topic, or by (in James case) posting.

This once was a great forum.

 

[James972]

I'm fairly certain the OP suffers from severe developmental problem, most likely aspergers, because the overwhelming majority of his post history is revolved around the single topic of NIPA identities and import certificates. A quick search regarding I'm Supposn and the word trade.

Having a developmental disorder is not an excuse to spam forums. It's not an excuse to break rules. James, I'm Supposn, and Lafayette have utterly ruined the economics forum by filling it with threads pertaining to the same topic, or by (in James case) posting.

This once was a great forum.

why not cut the BS? The only serious economic question on which the world's fate rides, is: capitalism versus socialism. If you have no opinion why not admit it and move on to something more suited to your IQ? I agree with you though about Supposin and Aspergers, and Layfayette.

 

[Kushinator]

why not cut the BS? The only serious economic question on which the world's fate rides, is: capitalism versus socialism.

You're just using these terms as partisan buzzwords. Economists avoid thinking and talking in this sense because the over-politicization has cast these terms to be open to interpretation. Take you for example. Your understanding of capitalism and socialism is logically consistent with someone rooting for the NY Giants over the NY Jets.

 

[Buck Naked]

The only serious economic question on which the world's fate rides, is: capitalism versus socialism.

Such an apocalyptic choice?


I bet I could make a better case that exogenous forces may be triggering cycles and patterns in markets and economies such as the frequency of sunspots and stock market prices on the basis that changes in magnetic radiation have an effect on the mass psychology of people than any case you can put forward that the world economy rides on capitalism versus socialism.


Economies and markets are people. They move up or down according to what the masses believe. Capitaliism v. Socialism is too minute a metric to gauge the world’s mass psychological feelings on the economy, not to mention that the masses cannot agree on definitions or the concepts themselves.




But, maybe you were joking, so I’ll back out

 

[James972]

[FONT=&]Such an apocalyptic choice? [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]I bet I could make a better case that exogenous forces may be triggering cycles and patterns in markets and economies such as the frequency of sunspots and stock market prices on the basis that changes in magnetic radiation have an effect on the mass psychology of people than any case you can put forward that the world economy rides on capitalism versus socialism.[/FONT]

dear, libsocialism just killed 150 million human souls while sunspots have killed no one. Do you understand?

[/QUOTE]