Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage

[GenSeneca]

GenSeneca, there are significant difficulties with using empirical statistics to extrapolate the effect of a specific type of factor upon a nations’ economies.

There was no extrapolation on my part. It's a simple matter of fact that during times of economic booms, imports are at their highest and during times of economic recession, imports are at their lowest.

There is every reason to question which are the causes or the effects with regard to your opinions.

But only mine, right? Not yours?

Here's a thought... Ask me to explain the cause and effect. You haven't done that, instead you've simply misrepresented my statements by claiming that I have reversed cause and effect. How do you know this without hearing my explanation?

Regarding the relationships between trade deficits and GDPs, I have less confidence in your empirical statistics and more confidence in logical analysis.

Logical analysis? Based on Aristotle, or Kant? Using inductive or deductive reasoning? Can you present your argument in a logical equation?

 

[Supposn]

Re: Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP and median wage.

Gen Seneca,

Originally Posted by Supposn:
GenSeneca, other nations are unable or unwilling to better compensate their labor.

Don't stop there... Tell us how that prevents US companies from expanding domestic production to meet domestic demand.

Why not “stop there? Isn’t cheaper labor that directly and indirectly affects all production costs a sufficiently adequate answer?
////////////////

Originally Posted by Supposn:
But our wage schedules have been comparatively stagnating which is an improvement over G. W’s administration when wages adjusted for inflation had too often declined.

Are you now claiming that the POTUS sets wages?

The federal administration and congress are the determiners of our federal policies wich affect our median wage. Federal trade policies affect our GDP and median wage. Granted that it is not the the largest factor but it's a factor that's politically more feassible to remedy and to remedy sooner.

It's unreasonable to expect persons or organizations to choose behavior they believe to be contrary to their own best interests. I do not fault foreign governments or any purchasers for their choices. I fault our federal administrations and congresses for determining federal trade policies that fail to adequately deal with our global trade environment. Our current trade policies are contrary to our nation’s best interests.

If we modify our trade policy to better deal with our global trade environment, we would to a significant extent modify that environment to be less disadvantageous to ourselves.

You reject my contention that this trade proposal would induce all entities (including foreign governments) to choose net behaviors that would be to our nation’s better advantage.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

There was no extrapolation on my part. It's a simple matter of fact that during times of economic booms, imports are at their highest and during times of economic recession, imports are at their lowest.
But only mine, right? Not yours?

Here's a thought... Ask me to explain the cause and effect. You haven't done that, instead you've simply misrepresented my statements by claiming that I have reversed cause and effect. How do you know this without hearing my explanation?

GenSeneca, I had supposed that your argument would be during times of economic booms, imports are at their highest and during times of economic recession, imports are at their lowest.
On that basis I argued that you’re confusing causes and effects.

I made an assumption that you now inform me was correct.

Although my assumption was correct, it may not be your entire argument; I did fail to ask. I apologize and I’m now asking that you elaborate upon your argument.

You understand the contention is not that trade deficits prevent GDP from increasing? Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs because (due to the deficits) their GDP's are less than otherwise.
Trade imbalances' affects upon their GDPs are generally understate global trade's effedcts upon their GDPs.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP and median wage.

Why not “stop there?

What is preventing domestic producers from meeting domestic demand with more expensive labor?

The federal administration and congress are the determiners of our federal policies wich affect our median wage. Federal trade policies affect our GDP and median wage. Granted that it is not the the largest factor but it's a factor that's politically more feassible to remedy and to remedy sooner.

If not trade policy, what do you think is the "largest factor" for GDP and Median wages?

Our current trade policies are contrary to our nation’s best interests.

I agree, we have far too many restrictions on trade. It would be in our nation's best interest to eliminate all trade barriers along with all government interference, no more tariffs, taxes, subsidies, or other protectionist nonsense.

You reject my contention that this trade proposal would induce all entities (including foreign governments) to choose net behaviors that would be to our nation’s better advantage.

Your proposal would induce all entities, including foreign governments, to enact IC systems of their own, which would nullify any advantage you think would result from adopting the IC proposal. Before you spout some claptrap about that being merely an opinion, one needs only look at what happens when we impose tariffs on foreign goods to know it's the most probable outcome. We impose tariffs on imports and the importing countries respond in kind by imposing tariffs on the goods we import into their countries. Any "benefit" of the tariff is thereby nullified and consumers in both countries now face unnecessarily higher prices for imported goods.

 

[GenSeneca]

I made an assumption that you now inform me was correct.

You should have paid more attention in English class.

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Do you think that is a statement of fact or is it an explanation of cause and effect?

There is no causal argument being made when stating the simple fact that: Imports are highest during booms and lowest during recessions.

A causal argument would be to claim that; booms are created as a result of imports, or that recessions are created because of a lack of imports.

You see, there needs to be causal language in a sentence to claim that it's a causal argument. Causal language includes, but is not limited to, words and phrases such as; because, as a result of, due to, etc. etc.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations' GDPs because (due to the deficits) their GDP's are less than otherwise.

That is a causal argument: 'Due to the trade deficits, GDP is less than it would be without the trade deficit'

It's not a good argument, you've offered nothing of substance to validate the argument, but it still qualifies as a causal argument.

The simple fact that you cannot quantify the increase should be a red flag for people but add to that the fact that you cannot qualify the statement, and it suddenly becomes clear to everyone that you're a snake oil salesman.

 

[Supposn]

There was no extrapolation on my part. It's a simple matter of fact that during times of economic booms, imports are at their highest and during times of economic recession, imports are at their lowest.

Originally Posted by Supposn:
There is every reason to question which are the causes or the effects with regard to your opinions.

But only mine, right? Not yours?

Here's a thought... Ask me to explain the cause and effect. You haven't done that, instead you've simply misrepresented my statements by claiming that I have reversed cause and effect. How do you know this without hearing my explanation?

GenSeneca, I state trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise. You offer statistical “proof” that the contention is false.
Additionally to a nation’s global trade imbalance there are other variables that affect GDPs and thus affect their nation’s domestic markets but do not directly affect their nations’ trade imbalances.

[When nations’ GDPs change, their domestic markets’ volumes of both domestic and import product sales also change. The proportions of those changing volumes are not necessarily proportionate to each other or to the changes of the nation’s GDP.
When foreign customers’ national GDPs change, nation’s sales to those foreign nations also generally change. The changes of a nation’s GDP and their export customers’ national GDPs generally and indirectly modify their, (i.e. the exporting) nation’s trade imbalance].

Trade imbalances alone do not determine if their nation’s GDPs increase or decrease. We cannot isolate and identify production that affects nations’ trade balances but are not reflected within the prices of their globally traded products. Statistics cannot logically “prove” the causes and effects between nations’ trade imbalances and GDPs.

We logically argue that trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute and trade deficits ALWAYS decrease their nations’ GDPs to a greater extent than otherwise. We have logical reason to believe (due to our inability to identify production not reflected within a nation's globally traded products), trade imbalances affects upon their nation’s GDP is generally understated; but we’re unable to quantify the understatement.

(Message #16 is my best effort thus far to logically explain trade deficits being ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDPs. I suppose that’s the limits of my ability to do so).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

.............There is no causal argument being made when stating the simple fact that: Imports are highest during booms and lowest during recessions.
......................... That is a causal argument: 'Due to the trade deficits, GDP is less than it would be without the trade deficit.
It's not a good argument, you've offered nothing of substance to validate the argument, but it still qualifies as a causal argument.

The simple fact that you cannot quantify the increase should be a red flag for people but add to that the fact that you cannot qualify the statement, and it suddenly becomes clear to everyone that you're a snake oil salesman.

GenSeneca, you write there’s no causal argument being made when stating “the simple fact that: Imports are highest during booms and lowest during recessions”.

I make the assumption that by describing the pairs of occurrences as a “fact” and your use of the words “highest” and “lowest” you are implying a cause and effect between the change of the nation’s total GDP and the change of the nation’s global trade balance.

If you're not implying such a cause and effect, why not simply deny that you’re making such an implication? If that’s the case we’re in agreement that although a nation’s trade imbalance affects its GDP, the changes of that balance does not itself determine if the GDP will increase or decrease.

Within message #16 I logically argue that trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute and trade deficits ALWAYS decrease their nations’ GDPs more than otherwise. I further provide logical reason to believe (due to our inability to identify production not reflected within a nation's globally traded products), trade imbalances affects upon their nations' GDPs are generally understated.

There are truths that are thus far beyond anyone’s ability to quantify, some have been quantified but their quantification is understood by the very few, some are quantified and understood many more (but not all) persons.

I have difficulty obtaining GDPs published by what I believe to be authoritative sources. It should be of no surprise that I’m unable to create those GDPs and I’m unaware of anyone who can quantify their understatement.

I suppose you’re aware of some truths that are beyond your ability to quantify.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[GenSeneca]

GenSeneca, I state trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise. You offer statistical “proof” that the contention is false.

Wrong. Your statement is contradicted by the empirical data and you offer no explanation for the contradiction. You have disregarded the facts by claiming them to be opinion and in the processs, attached yourself to the losing end of an argument about what constitutes causal language.

Trade imbalances alone do not determine if their nation’s GDPs increase or decrease.

Yet you have claimed, repeatedly, that imports are a detriment to GDP.

Statistics cannot logically “prove” the causes and effects between nations’ trade imbalances and GDPs.

You're admitting that your entire argument is based on something other than facts.

We logically argue that trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute and trade deficits ALWAYS decrease their nations’ GDPs to a greater extent than otherwise.

Lets see it. If you are actually capable of formulating a logical argument, then present your argument as a logical equation. I don't believe you are capable of doing that. I think you, like so many other people, simply claim "logic" as the basis of your opinions but don't actually employ logic when formulating your conclusions.

We have logical reason to believe (due to our inability to identify production not reflected within a nation's globally traded products), trade imbalances affects upon their nation’s GDP is generally understated; but we’re unable to quantify the understatement.

Your income ALWAYS has a detrimental affect on my income. I cannot qualify that statement in any way (offer facts to support my conclusion), I also cannot quantify that statement (cite the degree of detrimental impact), but I'm going to claim that I have unstated "logical reasons" for holding this totally irrational belief.

That's the level of absurdity contained in your "logical" argument.

 

[GenSeneca]

GenSeneca, you write there’s no causal argument being made when stating “the simple fact that: Imports are highest during booms and lowest during recessions”.

I make the assumption that by describing the pairs of occurrences as a “fact” and your use of the words “highest” and “lowest” you are implying a cause and effect between the change of the nation’s total GDP and the change of the nation’s global trade balance.

English 101... For beginners.

Causal Words: a causal conjunction such as ‘because’ introduces a statement describing the cause of something.​

The words "highest" and "lowest" are not causal words, they are adjectives:

Adjectives are words that describe or modify another person or thing in the sentence.​

Furthermore, the words "highest" and "lowest" are the superlative forms of the adjectives "high" and "low", and their only function is to describe or modify the noun, or subject, of the sentence - in this case they describe or modify the word "imports".

Lets look at the sentence without adjectives,

"Imports are during booms and they are during recessions"

Like your entire argument, that sentence doesn't make sense.

If you're not implying such a cause and effect, why not simply deny that you’re making such an implication?

Because I like humiliating people.

If that’s the case we’re in agreement that although a nation’s trade imbalance affects its GDP, the changes of that balance does not itself determine if the GDP will increase or decrease.

Imports increase during times of economic booms BECAUSE (that is a causal word) of an increase in domestic demand. An increase in imports is the effect while increased domestic demand for goods and services is the cause.

Imports decline during times of economic recession BECAUSE (causal word) of a lower domestic demand for goods and services. Again, the decline of imports is the effect brought about by the cause of lower domestic demand.

Now lets go back to your statement:

"[A]lthough a nation’s trade imbalance affects its GDP, the changes of that balance does not itself determine if the GDP will increase or decrease." - Supposn​

[T]rade surpluses ALWAYS contribute and trade deficits ALWAYS decrease their nations’ GDPs.

You just said that; although the balance of trade affects GDP, the existence of an imbalance does not have the causal effect of driving GDP higher or lower. Then, above, you claim the exact opposite, that the balance of trade ALWAYS has the causal effect of driving GDP higher or lower.

I suppose you’re aware of some truths that are beyond your ability to quantify.

Nope.

 

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by Supposn:
GenSeneca, I state trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise. You offer statistical “proof” that the contention is false. You object to my assumption that your confusing causes and effects within your use of the statistics but you have not clarified the reason for your objections. Your statistics may be empirical but your conclusions based upon those statistics are opinions rather than facts.

Wrong. Your statement is contradicted by the empirical data and you offer no explanation for the contradiction. You have disregarded the facts by claiming them to be opinion and in the processs, attached yourself to the losing end of an argument about what constitutes causal language.
Yet you have claimed, repeatedly, that imports are a detriment to GDP.
You're admitting that your entire argument is based on something other than facts.

I base the statement “trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise” upon the definition of GDP and the generally accepted calculation methods of the world’s communities of economists and statisticians.

If in your opinion a definition is not a fact, I recognize the merits of that opinion; but I don’t understand how any meaningful dialogue can occur without agreeing upon definitions of the terms being used. We otherwise do not understand each others languages.

The definition of GDP and the accepted formulas for calculating the GDP contain no terms that would even infer the production of a nation’s import products can contribute anything to the nation’s GDP.
[To the extent that the imported goods are produced with foreign goods and services, they are completely foreign products.]

The same definition and formulas explicitly confirm the production of a nation’s exports fully contribute to the nation’s GDP. That’s all mathematical proof.

I cannot, and I’m unaware of anyone that can mathematically calculate nations’ trade imbalances understated affect upon their GDPs. Due to any production not reflected within the prices of a nation’s globally traded products, nations’ global trade imbalances are understated. Message # 16 logically explains why and how those understatements occur.

Lets see it. If you are actually capable of formulating a logical argument, then present your argument as a logical equation. I don't believe you are capable of doing that. I think you, like so many other people, simply claim "logic" as the basis of your opinions but don't actually employ logic when formulating your conclusions.

The definition of GDP and the accepted formulas for calculating the GDP contain no terms that would even infer the production of a nation’s import products can contribute anything to the nation’s GDP.

If you reject that as a positive mathematical proof, do you additionally contend trade deficits do make a net contribution to their nations GDPs or have you not formulated an opinion upon this matter?

The same GDP definition and formulas explicitly increase nations’ GDPs by the amount of their exports. You don’t reject that positive conclusion?

I have offered a logical argument for the belief that to the extent of productions not reflected within the prices of a nation’s global trade products cannot be identified and attributed to the nation’s global trade, the affects of the nation’s trade imbalances upon their GDPs are generally understated. You contend otherwise?

What do you contend, what logical arguments do you offer to support your contentions and can you mathematically prove and quantify all of your contentions?

Respectfully, supposn

 

[Supposn]

...........You just said that; although the balance of trade affects GDP, the existence of an imbalance does not have the causal effect of driving GDP higher or lower. Then, above, you claim the exact opposite, that the balance of trade ALWAYS has the causal effect of driving GDP higher or lower.

GenSeneca, trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute and trade deficits ALWAYS decrease their nations’ GDPs more than otherwise. Trade imbalances alone do not determine if their nation’s GDPs increase or decrease. There is nothing contradictory between these two statements.

You claim I wrote or meant that “although the balance of trade affects GDP, the existence of an imbalance does not have the causal effect of driving GDP higher or lower”.

The wording of your, (rather than my) sentence could be interpreted to infer if not actually state that trade deficits do not decrease and surpluses do not increase their nations’ GDPs more than otherwise.

I would appreciate your explaining your own positions and not presume to modify the wording of mine. I have written things in error and when they're brought to my attention I'll be pleased to rectify my errors. In this case your critique is in error.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[steveox]

Reduce the trade,And raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

 

[GenSeneca]

What do you contend, what logical arguments do you offer to support your contentions and can you mathematically prove and quantify all of your contentions?

I'm not offering an opposing theory, I'm merely pointing out facts that directly contradict your theory.

USA’s trade deficit denied our nation the production of the products we imported. That’s why trade deficits are negative terms within GDP calculations.

Not according to the formula for calculating Gross Domestic Product:

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.​

I thought you were just confused but it turns out you're simply dishonest.

 

[GenSeneca]

Reduce the trade,And raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

If fewer imports are good, wouldn't zero imports be even better?

If increasing min wage to $10 and hour is a good idea, wouldn't increasing min wage to $50 an hour be five times better?

 

[Gipper]

If fewer imports are good, wouldn't zero imports be even better?

If increasing min wage to $10 and hour is a good idea, wouldn't increasing min wage to $50 an hour be five times better?

Yeah man...$50 bucks and hour would be so cool. Just imagine, everyone working at the fast food factories would make that...and be able to afford all sorts of nice things...and make the economy really hum.

Ops...but then the fast food factory owners would have to raise their prices significantly to cover the much higher labor costs, which would put them out of business and all those employees would be unemployed.

Damn...why is it progressive ideas NEVER work???