Globalists destroy societies

[Kamala Trump]

Not to 50% of GDP.

Sure, why not?

The supposed competitive advantages you mentioned.

These things haven't been tried. Corporate priorities need to be framed within a more long term thinking and prosocial context. Like how we used to NOT trade with the communist chinese, and used to consider jobs for americans to be a positive end in themselves, the keep the society afloat.

Lopsided trade as we have simply sucks wealth out of the society and lowers the standard of living. Trade arrangements which hurt the majority should be abandoned.

You are a pussy. If you insist on vague nonsense and refuse to explain how your goals might be achieved you have no basis for criticizing those who fail to imagine your "balanced trade."

You can't imagine more balanced trade? For real? do you know what a trade deficit is? Why are you so fuckin stoopit?

 

[Timshel]

Sure, why not?

Because, by definition, it is 100% of GDP.

You can't imagine more balanced trade? For real? do you know what a trade deficit is? Why are you so fuckin stoopit?

I can't imagine how you will remove the incentive to offshore without doing harm. There is really no good reason for you to avoid explaining it.

I can't imagine how YOUR concept of balanced trade would work. My view is that trade is always balanced. Obviously, you mean something different.

If you laid out your ideas maybe you could convince someone. Instead you just call anyone who disagrees or asks for details a "globalist naugahyde fascist." That might go over well in your mental ward, but it is unconvincing to those who have some grasp on reality.

Yes, I know what a trade deficit is. I know what GDP is and I know how the tax code incentivizes outsourcing. It is pretty clear that you don't.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Because, by definition, it is 100% of GDP.

Just think of it as correcting the trade imbalance. You're getting hung up on gdp.

I can't imagine how you will remove the incentive to offshore without doing harm. There is really no good reason for you to avoid explaining it.

We will have protectionist policies put in place. It will do more good than harm as it will keep the american middle class intact. And if multinationals leave because of "too expensive labor", we will just start homegrown corporations which have american society and it's people as part of the mission statement. Factors like long term stability of the society in which it resides can also be a factor in corporate planning. Laying off people for the short term boost is a small minded business plan.

I can't imagine how YOUR concept of balanced trade would work. My view is that trade is always balanced. Obviously, you mean something different.

If you laid out your ideas maybe you could convince someone. Instead you just call anyone who disagrees or asks for details a "globalist naugahyde fascist." That might go over well in your mental ward, but it is unconvincing to those who have some grasp on reality.

Yes, I know what a trade deficit is. I know what GDP is and I know how the tax code incentivizes outsourcing. It is pretty clear that you don't.

It would work through protectionist policies and limiting trade to partners with humane labor standards and human rights.

Business should take place with a greater moral and social context, it has in the past, and should once again, despite your idiotic globalist zealotry.

 

[Timshel]

Just think of it as correcting the trade imbalance. You're getting hung up on gdp.

No, you are hung up on trying to avoid acknowledging that you don't know what GDP is. We are already well above 50% of GDP being local. Problem solved.

We will have protectionist policies put in place. It will do more good than harm as it will keep the american middle class intact. And if multinationals leave because of "too expensive labor", we will just start homegrown corporations which have american society and it's people as part of the mission statement. Factors like long term stability of the society in which it resides can also be a factor in corporate planning. Laying off people for the short term boost is a small minded business plan.

In your opinion, it will do more good than harm and lead to this steaming pile of rosy assumptions. But you don't have any details, just more vague nonsense.

It would work through protectionist policies and limiting trade to partners with humane labor standards and human rights.

Business should take place with a greater moral and social context, it has in the past, and should once again, despite your idiotic globalist zealotry.

More vague bs, no answer to the question, no details and, as predicted, you fall back to your personal attacks.

There is no point in continuing this. You are unable or unwilling to explain your position.

 

[Kamala Trump]

You know what a trade deficit is.

you know what protectionist policies are.

We should use one to fix the other.

This is an easy concept.

Only globalists nimrods have confused themselves into massive stupidasses like yourself.

 

[Kamala Trump]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade"]Balance of trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Balance of trade
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The balance of trade encompasses the activity of exports and imports, like the work of this cargo ship going through the Panama Canal.
The balance of trade (or net exports, sometimes symbolized as NX) is the difference between the monetary value of exports and imports of output in an economy over a certain period. It is the relationship between a nation's imports and exports.[1] A favourable balance of trade is known as a trade surplus and consists of exporting more than is imported; an unfavourable balance of trade is known as a trade deficit or, informally, a trade gap. The balance of trade is sometimes divided into a goods and a services balance.
Early understanding of the functioning of balance of trade informed the economic policies of Early Modern Europe that are grouped under the heading mercantilism. An early statement appeared in Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England, 1549: "We must always take heed that we buy no more from strangers than we sell them, for so should we impoverish ourselves and enrich them."[2]

 

[Kamala Trump]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Certificates"]Import Certificates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Import Certificates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Import Certificates are an idea for governmental economic intervention to fix a country's trade deficit. The idea was first proposed by Warren Buffett. In the United States, the idea was first introduced legislatively in the Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006. The proposed legislation was sponsored by Senators Byron Dorgan (ND) and Russell Feingold (WI), two Democrats in the United States senate. Since then there has been no action on the bill.
[edit]Concept

Buffett's plan proposes creating a market for import certificates that would represent the right to import a certain dollar amount of goods into the United States from other countries. These certificates would be issued to US exporters in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the goods they export, and can be sold to importers, who must purchase them in order to legally import goods. The price of an import certificate is set by free-market forces, and therefore ultimately is dependent on the balance between imported and exported goods through supply and demand.
Proceeds from the sale of import certificates would encourage exporters (who would gain that extra money in addition to the proceeds of their exports) and discourage importers (who would need to pay the additional cost to acquire import certificates as well as the cost to acquire the goods they are importing). This system would essentially create a broad-based tariff on imports to the United States.
As a theoretical concept, the idea could apply to other countries besides the United States, but Buffett argues that practical realities make it unlikely to succeed elsewhere. In particular, for any country which maintains a trade surplus the import certificates will be valueless.
[edit]Examples

Suppose that in a given time frame the US exports $1 trillion worth of goods, and importers desire to import $1.5 trillion worth of goods. $1 trillion worth of import certificates will be issued in that time frame, and since $1.5 trillion worth of import certificates are desired by importers, they must compete over the available supply, driving up the price to a point where only $1 trillion of goods are worth importing. Suppose this price is $0.1 for a $1 certificate. In that case, exporters make an additional total of $0.1 trillion by selling their issued import certificates, while the importers who have decided to import despite the additional cost, have to pay an extra $0.1 trillion in total to do so.
Suppose at another time frame the US exports $2 trillion worth of goods, and importers still desire to import only $1.5 trillion worth of goods. In that case there will be more import certificates available than are desired, and the price of a certificate will drop to zero, allowing for completely free trade.
[edit]External links

 

[Timshel]

You know what a trade deficit is.

you know what protectionist policies are.

We should use one to fix the other.

This is an easy concept.

Only globalists nimrods have confused themselves into massive stupidasses like yourself.

It is a vague pile of shit that puts us right back where we started. Protectionist policies will reduce our trade deficit in the same way recessions reduce our trade deficit, by lowering our purchasing power.

 

[Timshel]

Import Certificates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Import Certificates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Import Certificates are an idea for governmental economic intervention to fix a country's trade deficit. The idea was first proposed by Warren Buffett. In the United States, the idea was first introduced legislatively in the Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006. The proposed legislation was sponsored by Senators Byron Dorgan (ND) and Russell Feingold (WI), two Democrats in the United States senate. Since then there has been no action on the bill.
[edit]Concept

Buffett's plan proposes creating a market for import certificates that would represent the right to import a certain dollar amount of goods into the United States from other countries. These certificates would be issued to US exporters in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the goods they export, and can be sold to importers, who must purchase them in order to legally import goods. The price of an import certificate is set by free-market forces, and therefore ultimately is dependent on the balance between imported and exported goods through supply and demand.
Proceeds from the sale of import certificates would encourage exporters (who would gain that extra money in addition to the proceeds of their exports) and discourage importers (who would need to pay the additional cost to acquire import certificates as well as the cost to acquire the goods they are importing). This system would essentially create a broad-based tariff on imports to the United States.
As a theoretical concept, the idea could apply to other countries besides the United States, but Buffett argues that practical realities make it unlikely to succeed elsewhere. In particular, for any country which maintains a trade surplus the import certificates will be valueless.
[edit]Examples

Suppose that in a given time frame the US exports $1 trillion worth of goods, and importers desire to import $1.5 trillion worth of goods. $1 trillion worth of import certificates will be issued in that time frame, and since $1.5 trillion worth of import certificates are desired by importers, they must compete over the available supply, driving up the price to a point where only $1 trillion of goods are worth importing. Suppose this price is $0.1 for a $1 certificate. In that case, exporters make an additional total of $0.1 trillion by selling their issued import certificates, while the importers who have decided to import despite the additional cost, have to pay an extra $0.1 trillion in total to do so.
Suppose at another time frame the US exports $2 trillion worth of goods, and importers still desire to import only $1.5 trillion worth of goods. In that case there will be more import certificates available than are desired, and the price of a certificate will drop to zero, allowing for completely free trade.
[edit]External links

This is a stupid idea. It's result will be a discount to foreign consumers financed by a premium to American consumers.

 

[Kamala Trump]

You can't even understand what a trade deficit is or even the idea of correcting one, so your opinion on a solution is irrelevant, because, for ideological reason, you don't want a solution.

 

[Kamala Trump]

It is a vague pile of shit that puts us right back where we started. Protectionist policies will reduce our trade deficit in the same way recessions reduce our trade deficit, by lowering our purchasing power.

purchasing power means little when you have been outsourced out of the supply chain.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Rstringfield eats jizz.

 

[Timshel]

You can't even understand what a trade deficit is or even the idea of correcting one, so your opinion on a solution is irrelevant, because, for ideological reason, you don't want a solution.

I know what a trade deficit is. Trade deficit (surplus) = imports - exports. Pretty fucking simple. I also know what GDP is, while you do not.

For ideological reasons I don't want a solution that causes more problems than it solves. Buffet's idea and all protectionist policies will hurt consumers (suppliers/manufacturers are also consumers).

 

[Kamala Trump]

I know what a trade deficit is. Trade deficit (surplus) = imports - exports. Pretty fucking simple. I also know what GDP is, while you do not.

For ideological reasons I don't want a solution that causes more problems than it solves. Buffet's idea and all protectionist policies will hurt consumers (suppliers/manufacturers are also consumers).

you just don't see destroying the middle class as a problem, because you're an asshole.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Cheap prices mean little when you have zero income.

 

[Timshel]

you just don't see destroying the middle class as a problem, because you're an asshole.

Protectionism will decimate the middle class and benefit only a select few. You don't have a problem with that because you are a xenophobic asshole.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Protectionism will decimate the middle class and benefit only a select few. You don't have a problem with that because you are a xenophobic asshole.

How will protectionism decimate the middle class?

Governments exist to regulate business in the favor of the majority. There is an intrinsic value of jobs for americans you're not calculating in your profit loss statement. And there are risks of having your supply chain depend on hostile foreign powers that you're also not factoring in.

 

[Timshel]

How will protectionism decimate the middle class?

Yes.

Just kidding, I am not a pussy like you...

By inflating the prices of the goods they buy for the benefit of some manufacturers/service providers.

Governments exist to regulate business in the favor of the majority.

Maybe, for a socialist or national socialist like yourself. That is not the purpose of government expressed in the DofI.

There is an intrinsic value of jobs for americans you're not calculating in your profit loss statement.

No, there is not. You don't work for free and no one is going to pay you to do some pointless task. At least they would not pay you for long as they would soon go broke.

And there are risks of having your supply chain depend on hostile foreign powers that you're also not factoring in.

I would agree, but you define all foreigners as hostile, which is not the case.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Yes.

Just kidding, I am not a pussy like you...

By inflating the prices of the goods they buy for the benefit of some manufacturers/service providers.

But the plus side is that they will actually have jobs. There will be a more balanced trade deficit and more self determination national self reliance, which is a very important national security consideration.

Maybe, for a socialist or national socialist like yourself. That is not the purpose of government expressed in the DofI.

It's not to allow menatarists to dictate society and do social engineering projects through currency manipulation.

No, there is not. You don't work for free and no one is going to pay you to do some pointless task. At least they would not pay you for long as they would soon go broke.



I would agree, but you define all foreigners as hostile, which is not the case.

Invasion is invasion. Jobs are resources. Part of a governments job is to profide some benefit to cititenship. One is boder enforcement to protect the labor market from a downward spiral.

 

[Timshel]

But the plus side is that they will actually have jobs. There will be a more blah blah blah vague meaningless bs

Protectionist policies will not get us to full employment, they won't even increase the number of jobs.

It's not to allow menatarists to dictate society and do social engineering projects through currency manipulation.

Huh? I think you mean monetarists? That still does not make much sense.

Regardless, currency manipulation has nothing to do with trade. Currency was being inflated during the days of mercantilism and trade barriers.

Invasion is invasion. Jobs are resources. Part of a governments job is to profide some benefit to cititenship. One is boder enforcement to protect the labor market from a downward spiral.

Jobs are not resources.

The rest demonstrates, as I said, that you view all foreigners as hostile.