Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP, jobs and median wage

[Supposn]

Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP, jobs and median wage.

It is not our global trade but our chronic annual trade deficits that are a significant drag upon our economy.
Annual Trade deficits’ are ALWAYS a net drag upon their nation’s economy. They are net detrimental to their nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs and the purchasing power of their median wage.

I’m a proponent of a proposal to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods as described within the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. The proposal for transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) is unilateral and its entire net costs are entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods.

If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, it is of some benefit to every USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods anywhere in he world. It would increase prices to USA purchasers of imported goods and is an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods. The price increases of imports to USA purchasers and reductions of USA export goods’ prices to foreign purchasers are substantially much more market rather than government determined.

Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
And
To the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade”.

Respectfully Supposn

[spacemonkey]

My two cents = a finite world, resources, and markets makes on and up forever impossible. Although they don't seem to be aware yet, the holy grail of the future will be what is sustainable.

[John Galt]

having a large trade deficit as the united states has had for half a century is possible because dollars are being used to be invested in america by outside investors. when we buy stuff from china we need yuan, so we need to trade dollars for yuan, and then we take said yuan and buy mcdonald's toys or whatever with it. but we need someone to trade dollars for yuan with. and why would anyone want dollars if there's such a glut of them from trade deficit? well, investors want them, to invest in america. trade deficits would naturally close if there was a surplus or deficit of dollars to buy stuff. so basically what this proposes wrecks foreign investment in american companies

the mercantilist policy of trade surplus == good, trade deficit == bad was shown to be wrong in 1776, the year of adam smith's book. and america.

here's an article on why free trade is best

http://www.economist.com/node/605144

[Kane]

Reduce the trade deficit...save the world...

[IndependentProfessor]

[Supposn]

Low wage rate nation’s advantages over USA’s (actual or potential) producers:

Independent Professor, balance of trade is not the only factor that determines the condition of a nation’s economy. Annual changes of a nation’s trade balance do not have a constant proportional effect upon their nation’s GDP because GDP’s component factors are interrelated. But certainly to some extent a nation’s trade deficit is a drag upon the nation’s GDP. It drags upon the nation’s number of jobs, and median-wage which would have been greater (if the nation had not experienced the annual trade deficit).

Arguments equating the extent of individual entities immediate benefits due to individual transactions to be weighed against those entities long term interests disregard the majority of individual entities cannot afford the luxury of sufficient time and resources at hand to enable their pursuing what’s to their longer-term best interests. They are impelled to choose a “bird in the hand”.
Those arguing the superior quality of imports from low-wage nations ignore the extent that that quality is often due to the producers being able to pay lesser rates for more hours and/or quality of labor integral to their products.

The benefits of cheaper imports do not compensate USA employees and their dependents for trade deficit’s economic detrimental effects upon USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and median-wage.

We should not generally expect individuals to waive their immediate interests in favor of long in the future benefits that would occur (IF we all behaved altruistically). It is feasible to change entities motivations by modifying their environment; (by modifying the laws governing USA practices of global trade).

Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nations economies” within Wikipedia’s “Balance of Trade” article
and/or
to the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Kane]

[spacemonkey]

The big error in our free trade is we not only sent the product, but included the factory with it. Carrier and Nabisco are the next on deck to go. All in the name of corporate profit. So all this " We are the pillar of human rights and dignity " is just pure bullshit hypocrisy.

[Supposn]

My allegiance to the USA takes precedence to that of an international entity.

John Galt, we can stipulate agreement to some concepts and facts:
All mutually agreed to transactions are (at very least to some extent) based upon the participants’ perceptions of their own comparative advantages.
USA enterprises’ immediate advantages derived from their outsourcing do (to some extent) differ from that of employees that are displaced primarily due to the outsourcing.
Enterprises would be at competitive disadvantage if they refrained while their competitors are enabled to continue reducing their net costs by outsourcing.
To any extent that the nation’s gross production, (i.e. GDP) is “dragged” due to outsourcing, the nations net numbers of jobs and/or labor hours and our median wage will also both reflect and contribute to the “dragging” of the GDP.
I not advocating our nation should eliminate USA enterprises’ outsourcing; that would be unfeasible and economically unsound. I do believe that the practice of outsourcing itself is economically beneficial; (i.e. outsourcing is not (itself) detrimental to a nation's GDP).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

But annual trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDP.

[The U.S. Constitution that replaced the Articles of the Confederacy granted federal governments supreme jurisdiction over international AND interstate commerce. The convention delegates of some states certainly recognized their states’ advantages over other states. The negotiators waiving of those states’ advantages to favor the United States of America was the political risks of some delegates and the economic sacrifices of their states in favor of our entire nation’s economy.]

I’m much more of a chauvinistic USA patriot; my primary allegiance is not to the U.N. or international trade treaties enforced by international courts.
I’m opposed to the dragging upon USA’s GDP. Trade deficit’s drag upon our GDP, (i.e. drag upon our production) affects and is affected by our numbers of jobs and median wage rate. Trade deficits are a particular burden upon employees, their dependents and any other entities that are particularly sensitive to USA’s wage rates.
I’m opposed to our trade practices that leave USA wages with lesser purchasing powers and altruistically better favors nations unable or unwilling to sufficiently compensate their own workers.

Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nations economies” within Wikipedia’s “Balance of Trade” article
and/or
to the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]