Gen Seneca, GDP and median wage measured in U.S. dollars of constant values would increase.
Respectfully, Supposn
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.
- Thread starter Supposn
- Start date
Gen Seneca, GDP and median wage measured in U.S. dollars of constant values would increase.
Respectfully, Supposn
Werbung:
Supposn said: ↑
Gen Seneca, reconciliation is precisely what we’ve both described.
The additions of exports to and subtraction of imports from, (i.e. the addition of net global trade to) total purchases leaves GDP as a remainder.
This is similar to subtracting checks written from starting balance plus deposits plus outstanding checks to reconcile to the account’s reported ending balance.
Respectfully, Supposn
You are correct; trade deficit’s reduction within the calculation of GDP is to reconcile the expenditures for the purchase of imports.
Gen Seneca, reconciliation is precisely what we’ve both described.
The additions of exports to and subtraction of imports from, (i.e. the addition of net global trade to) total purchases leaves GDP as a remainder.
This is similar to subtracting checks written from starting balance plus deposits plus outstanding checks to reconcile to the account’s reported ending balance.
Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn said: ↑
Gen Seneca, your point is? Respectfully, Supposn
It is the production of goods and services that drive payrolls which drives our median wage, which drives sales, which drives the GDP.
Gen Seneca, your point is? Respectfully, Supposn
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
According to what evidence?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
It's not the same. Imported goods add value to the economy and GDP would be lower without the added value imports provide. That added value is not measured within the calculation of GDP. Additionally, imports have a positive effect on opportunity costs - this too is not measured by GDP.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
GDP is a measurement of domestic production. You claimed domestic production drives (causes) the measurement of production... It's like saying the speedometer on a car is what causes the speed of the car to change.
Now the rest of your statement: Production drives sales and increases median wages. If that were true, I could sit around all day making paper airplanes and become a millionaire selling them, after all, according to you, it's the act of producing them that causes them to sell.
Production does not cause sales, production does not cause an increase in wages, and production does not cause it's own measurement.
Gen Seneca, goods may be created to satisfy an expectation that the goods would be purchased, (i.e. production for speculated sales); or the goods may have been sold prior to their production, (i.e. production to satisfy what’s on order).
Intermittent sales transactions generally do not wait for their inventories to be depleted but they rather purchase goods to restock their inventory. Generally inventories are maintained in expectations of sales.
Thus the majority of goods are produced in direct or indirect speculation that the goods will be sold; (i.e. “produced on spec”).
Expectations of sales are generally due to prior experiences and/or insight of the past or future; that’s all speculative.
If you were commercially motivated to produce paper airplanes, your production would be due to your expectations of sales. I suppose if your expectations were not satisfied, your production of paper airplanes would halt.
I suppose your objection to my message has merit. It is not only sales but also the expectation of sales that induce production, but certainly increased production increases the GDP.
I originally wrote, it is the production of goods and services that drive payrolls which drives our median wage, which drives sales, which drives the GDP.
Respectfully Supposn
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Like the conspiracy theorist in the truther thread, nothing I say, no evidence that I provide, no amount of logic or reason will ever convince you that what you believe is wrong... Like him, you are not seeking an honest conversation, you wish only to convince others to unquestionably share in your belief.
Import Certificates would not increase GDP, they would reduce it. . Furthermore, Import Certificates would not benefit the average American (only the politically connected cronies like Buffet who proposed this nonsense would benefit). The average American would see their cost of living rise precipitously, their standard of living fall just as rapidly, and unemployment would surge as companies, and even entire industries, that rely on cheap foreign goods to produce their products to earn a profit would go bankrupt overnight.
Now unlike the truther from the other thread, you have a proposal that can be tested in the real world... Here's what you should do: For the next month or so, refuse to spend more on food from whatever establishment you choose (local grocer, restaurant, fast food chain, ect.) then they spend with you. This ensures that you will have an even balance of trade with whomever you purchase your food from. Now just before you starve to death (2 weeks or so), be sure to return to the forum and post about how much more money you're earning and how wonderful your life is now that you've eliminated that particular trade deficit from your life.
Rafaele Nat
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 11
That trade deficit is necessarily bad is one of the longest standing economy myths.
Gen Seneca, to the extent that we disagree on what factors and to what extent are germane to an issue, what you would describe as reasonably logical differs from my determination.
You and I concur that voluntarily entered trade agreements are perceived by their principle participants as to be to their individual advantages, those participants are all more or less correct and in aggregate they most principle participants do benefit from their trade agreements.
If you agree that there are other non-participants to trade agreements that are affected by those agreements, you apparently do not agree upon the importance of those affects upon the nation’s entire economy.
You do not accept my contention that the immediate and medium term best interests of global trade participants diverge from those of others within their nations and those global trade agreements while to their principle parties best immediate interests can be contrary to their nation’s net economic interests.
We agree that an enterprise can profit by outsourcing for goods and reducing their own net costs. We agree that if an enterprise can profit from reducing their labor forces components and goods and materials, they would be at competitive disadvantage if they did not do so.
You do not agree that although global trade is certainly of net benefit to its principle agreeing parties, trade deficits are of net disadvantage to their nations’ economies.
It’s my opinion that economics is not a science but rather a philosophy, (i.e. a system of thought). Economics does not readily lend itself to laboratory experiment or” proof” or “disproof”. It is often difficult if not impossible to objectively determine which is cause or effect.
But the greatest difference between our conclusions is due to the concept that the immediate best interests of enterprises, (individually or in aggregate) can and in the case of a nation’s trade deficit do diverge from the nation’s best interests.
Respectfully, Supposn
You and I concur that voluntarily entered trade agreements are perceived by their principle participants as to be to their individual advantages, those participants are all more or less correct and in aggregate they most principle participants do benefit from their trade agreements.
If you agree that there are other non-participants to trade agreements that are affected by those agreements, you apparently do not agree upon the importance of those affects upon the nation’s entire economy.
You do not accept my contention that the immediate and medium term best interests of global trade participants diverge from those of others within their nations and those global trade agreements while to their principle parties best immediate interests can be contrary to their nation’s net economic interests.
We agree that an enterprise can profit by outsourcing for goods and reducing their own net costs. We agree that if an enterprise can profit from reducing their labor forces components and goods and materials, they would be at competitive disadvantage if they did not do so.
You do not agree that although global trade is certainly of net benefit to its principle agreeing parties, trade deficits are of net disadvantage to their nations’ economies.
It’s my opinion that economics is not a science but rather a philosophy, (i.e. a system of thought). Economics does not readily lend itself to laboratory experiment or” proof” or “disproof”. It is often difficult if not impossible to objectively determine which is cause or effect.
But the greatest difference between our conclusions is due to the concept that the immediate best interests of enterprises, (individually or in aggregate) can and in the case of a nation’s trade deficit do diverge from the nation’s best interests.
Respectfully, Supposn
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I would ask for proof of such an assertion but you readily admit that you have none. In trying to say we simply disagree on what constitutes logic and reason, you are claiming that logic and reason are subjective, they are not subjective. You cannot claim to be using logic and/or reason to reach a conclusion if you disregard, and indeed avoid, reality, facts, and empirical data - the inputs necessary to the application of logical thought. Holding a belief in something for which there is no proof, for which there is no evidence, is faith. Faith is subjective, logic and reason are not.
Economics: the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
Economic theory can be tested, I have even offered you an experiment that accomplishes on the individual level what you wish to impose on the national level. Your unfounded belief that your life will improve through the elimination of trade deficits will inevitably clash with facts and reality as you starve to death by adhering to the policy measures you propose. On some level, you know this to be true but acknowledging such a fact would negate the validity of your assertions.
Furthermore, we can objectively determine which is the cause and which is the effect in economics; you cannot have your cake and eat it too, you cannot eat your cake and then have it, you cannot have your cake without first baking it and the act of eating your cake after having baked it does not cause another cake to appear. Any philosophy, economic or otherwise, that does not comprehend causality, is not based on reality.
The difference between our conclusions are fact vs. faith. Reality vs. fantasy. What I know about economics is just that, knowledge, it had to be learned, knowledge cannot be gained by mystical revelation. To obtain knowledge requires work, that means using facts and data, applying the information to the scientific process of logic, and then accepting, by reason, what reality has proven to be true.
By your own admission, economics to you is a mystical concept, a purely subjective realm where no distinction is made between fact and opinion, between reality and fantasy. Every statement on economics is treated as just another opinion with no opinions any more valid or absurd than any other. The tragedy of all this is that you cannot be swayed by reason.
Gen Seneca, the study of physics is a great deal more objective than the study of medicine but yet there’s a great deal within physics that is subject to differences of opinions. I do not know what will be the future great discoveries within the physical sciences but we can be reasonably certain that among those discoveries will be the revelation of something we now know with certainty is not true.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Bear with me because I did not relate the following tale with fewer words:
I questioned the medication prescribed for me. When I took the prescribed dosage it reduced (but did not eliminate my targeted symptom for which there is no known cure. The problem was that dosage also caused a new symptom that’s more troubling than the original targeted symptom.
The newly reduced symptom is very disturbing. I refused to accept an additional medication to treat the newly introduced symptom. The new symptom is in a highly complex area of my body; any inadvertent disturbance within that area could be disastrous. I compromised by accepting lower dosage and lesser mitigation of the original symptom.
Later I developed a tolerance for the medication; it no longer provides even a reduced remedy. I considered reconciling myself to enduring the original symptom and cease all further treatment. I inquired as to the prognoses if I chose to go that way. My doctor’s reply was my original symptom would continuously depreciate. I thus far accepted her alternative treatment. I don’t see where the new medication is doing me much good but I don’t know if my symptom wouldn’t now be more pronounced if I followed my hunch and ceased all treatment].
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I asked my doctor if I should consult a second opinion, could I reasonably expect that another doctor would advise me differently? I did not wish to appear disrespect her (but my doctor knew I was implying another doctor with equal or superior credentials in her field of specialty). Her answer was ‘Yes, of course the second opinion may differ from mine”.
That’s the point of my looooong tale; the practice of medical science is also the practice of the medical arts.
Nuclear science is objective; we attempt to understand how electrons behave in aggregate. Even if we could track the behavior of individual electrons, we could not predict their behaviors
The study of physics is not entirely predictable. Medicine is much more subjective than physics and may not be any less subjective than economics.
You presume to tell me that economics is a science subject to the same laboratory confirmation that we expect from chemistry or physics experiments?
You do not accept others with no less knowledge and logic than yourself may consider your facts and logic to actually be your opinions and fables?
Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Bear with me because I did not relate the following tale with fewer words:
I questioned the medication prescribed for me. When I took the prescribed dosage it reduced (but did not eliminate my targeted symptom for which there is no known cure. The problem was that dosage also caused a new symptom that’s more troubling than the original targeted symptom.
The newly reduced symptom is very disturbing. I refused to accept an additional medication to treat the newly introduced symptom. The new symptom is in a highly complex area of my body; any inadvertent disturbance within that area could be disastrous. I compromised by accepting lower dosage and lesser mitigation of the original symptom.
Later I developed a tolerance for the medication; it no longer provides even a reduced remedy. I considered reconciling myself to enduring the original symptom and cease all further treatment. I inquired as to the prognoses if I chose to go that way. My doctor’s reply was my original symptom would continuously depreciate. I thus far accepted her alternative treatment. I don’t see where the new medication is doing me much good but I don’t know if my symptom wouldn’t now be more pronounced if I followed my hunch and ceased all treatment].
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I asked my doctor if I should consult a second opinion, could I reasonably expect that another doctor would advise me differently? I did not wish to appear disrespect her (but my doctor knew I was implying another doctor with equal or superior credentials in her field of specialty). Her answer was ‘Yes, of course the second opinion may differ from mine”.
That’s the point of my looooong tale; the practice of medical science is also the practice of the medical arts.
Nuclear science is objective; we attempt to understand how electrons behave in aggregate. Even if we could track the behavior of individual electrons, we could not predict their behaviors
The study of physics is not entirely predictable. Medicine is much more subjective than physics and may not be any less subjective than economics.
You presume to tell me that economics is a science subject to the same laboratory confirmation that we expect from chemistry or physics experiments?
You do not accept others with no less knowledge and logic than yourself may consider your facts and logic to actually be your opinions and fables?
Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn said:
It’s my opinion that economics is not a science but rather a philosophy, (i.e. a system of thought). Economics does not readily lend itself to laboratory experiment or” proof” or “disproof”. It is often difficult if not impossible to objectively determine which is cause or effect.
Gen Seneca, I never doubted economics logic and reason but economics is a social study dependent to s great extent upon the reasonable and logical behavior of people. There’s apparent limit to people’s logical and reasonable behavior.
Respectfully, Supposn
It’s my opinion that economics is not a science but rather a philosophy, (i.e. a system of thought). Economics does not readily lend itself to laboratory experiment or” proof” or “disproof”. It is often difficult if not impossible to objectively determine which is cause or effect.
Gen Seneca, I never doubted economics logic and reason but economics is a social study dependent to s great extent upon the reasonable and logical behavior of people. There’s apparent limit to people’s logical and reasonable behavior.
Respectfully, Supposn
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Economics is an objective science.
Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Psuedo-Economics is not objective:
Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
With regards to specific economic policies regarding trade, yes, such proposals can be objectively tested for validity. I offered you one such test to objectively measure the validity of your theory for the use of Import Certificates. If you, as an individual, were to apply the concept of IC's to your personal life, you would completely eliminate your trade deficit with the rest of the world but, as a consequence, starve to death naked and homeless.
You can have your own opinion but there is only one reality. As I've pointed out, you cannot claim to have an equal knowledge of economics, or claim to have gained that knowledge by way of logic, while willfully disregarding facts that contradict your opinions. Now, I cannot force you to accept reality, you must choose to accept it or continue to deny it's existence.
I can accept that you believe, without evidence, that what I say is wrong but I have reality on my side of the argument. I didn't listen to a bunch of opinions on the subject and choose to be an advocate for free trade because that's what appealed to me, I looked at the facts and accepted reality. So when you argue against me on this issue of trade, you are not arguing against some subjectively arrived at opinion, you are arguing against objective reality - that is the basis of every position I hold.
Werbung:
Gen Seneca, I do not doubt economic’s logic and reason but economics is a social study dependent to a great extent upon the reasonable and logical behavior of people.
There’s an apparent limit to people’s logical and reasonable behavior; there’s certainly a limit to your’s.
Those that believe there's always a single absolute truth have no need for the government democracies or republics.
If there is only one pure truth and anything else is at best less pure or at worst an infidelity or a falsehood. It’s then reasonable to believe that the best government is one that can find the “direct line” to the truth and that pure truth shall not be challenged by lesser people’s s opinions.
Historically almost all governments were more or less based precisely upon that foundation of belief.
Persons were “chosen” to govern by “trail by battle” or by heredity, or by credentialed priests. The foundation of all these methods for choice was their societies’ confidence that divine intervention determined the victors.
Believing as you claim there’s only one single truth; it would be illogical and unreasonable to have faith in the subjective opinions of voters.
If the “wrong” candidates are elected in November, would your reluctance to join an armed insurrection to remedy our election results be due to a lack of patriotism? Your contention of a single unquestionable truth is very unsettling.
Should you be correct, I suppose G_d has been whispering in my ear only. Your presumptions annoy me. I refuse to tell you all that disagree with us, (i.e. G-d and myself), everything that he or she told me.
Respectfully, Supposn
