Always? Is it always a good thing to run a trade deficit? As always, it depends on the particulars. These days a lot of trade occurs in things that are not as easily measurable as the exchanges of physical goods and services that currently underpin the accounting that announces trade surplus or deficit. For example financial instruments, considered neither a good or service or both a good and a service depending on who you talk to, that move across borders continuously at the speed of light 24 hours a day 7 days a week are excluded from trade measures even though they account for over 99.9% of the money moving across borders every day. Payment for goods and services accounts for less than 0.002% of international monetary transactions on any given day. It would not take much for a nation at a nexus of international financial trading to accumulate a monetary surplus that is far greater than any monetary deficit or surplus appearing from the trade of goods and services. Trade surpluses and deficits have far less bearing on a nations well being than its place in the world financial markets.
Obviously you didn't read what I posted. 1,2 and 3 are covered under the protection of individual rights. 7 is required to fund a judicial system, a national defense, and local police. 4,5,6,8,9,10 are not the proper role of government. - - - Updated - - - Warren is contradicting herself. You are either for a free economy or you aren't, there is no middle ground. I find it interesting that she characterizes freedom as "free for all". And what does Warren propose replacing it with? A crony capitalist system where some are empowered to use force against others.
Frank650, I can only speculate as to what you or Elizabeth Warren consider to be or not be worthy of the free economy label. We all probably differ to some extent with each other. You response to Unrealist42, (i.e. Obviously you didn't read what I posted) doesnt specify what post youre referring to. Your post that Im now responding to is post #127 of this thread. All of the major nations, (if not all nations on earth), have enacted laws or regulations which entail (most if not all of the government intervention practices that Unrealist42 listed. Are you contending that no nation on earth has a free economy according to your definition of the label? Your differentiating among Unrealist42s examples seem to be those government interventions you approve of and those you disapprove of; but they are all examples of government intervention. I dont perceive the logic of your post. You inserted (what I suppose is an exact) transcript of my post without any additional comment from you. Until you make your point, I cannot respond to you regarding this. Respectfully, Supposn
I did read what you posted, maybe you misunderstood my reply. Perhaps we disagree about the fundamental role of government. You said: And I replied: The US Constitution begins with the words "WE THE PEOPLE". Those three words establish the United States of America, above all other things, as a group endeavour. Because the US is established as a group endeavour dedicated to the free exercise of right freedom and liberty of all people it includes some exclusive rights for individuals. However, these individual rights are not absolute and the government is obliged to constrain any exercise of individual right that creates an unreasonable hazard or impediment to the exercise of individual right freedom and liberty by another person. In other words, the government is obliged to operate in the best interest of all the people. Does the right to free speech include allowing someone to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre? Does the right to bear arms include allowing anyone to have a nuclear weapon? Does the right to own property include the right to own people? Does the government's obligation to protect individual property rights require the government to protect the rights of people whose activities are a gross infringement on the rights of many others? Your position is decidedly anti-American. What you are seeking is to replace "WE THE PEOPLE" with "WE THE PROPERTY OWNERS". It might be an honest mistake on your part, you might be one of those who believe that those who are not wealthy are not people. As the Ambassador to El Salvador once said "It is very difficult to talk to these people (meaning the wealthy) about human rights because they do not consider the campesinos to be human beings."
I am differentiating between negative (freedom of speech) vs positive rights (right to housing). Positive rights entail intervention and an abrogation of individual rights. "Economic interventionism (sometimes state interventionism) is an economic orientation that advocates for government intervention in the market process to correct market failures in the public interest. An economic intervention is any action taken by a government or international institution in a market economy or market-based mixed economy in an effort to impact the economy beyond the basic regulation of fraud and enforcement of contracts and provision of public goods." None of the ones I selected from the list fall under interventionism. They are entities (police, judicial system, military, etc.) that exist to protect the markets from coercion and ensure compliance with private property rights and contract law. I think the logic is pretty clear on this. As to your second question of "free economies" I would certainly agree that no such economy exists in this world. In fact, every political system is an amalgamation of different ideologies, even in North Korea they have a free economic zone. The freest economies are in Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia, each has some measure of government intervention in the markets but overall they are relatively easy to conduct business in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you accept the notion that governments should intervene in their economies you should be able to answer several questions: 1. Intervention presumes a perfect knowledge of the markets, yet no individual or entity has ever been able to even close to this. 2. Accepting government intervention presupposes that the people in charge are benevolent, as Madison said " If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." 3. Market interference creates winners and losers, not based on ability but political considerations.
From my vantage point you are the person advocating an anti-American position. As I said in another post, the role of government is to protect negative rights. The moment you cross over into positive rights you assume the ability to take away the rights of any individual as you see fit (I can cite many examples). People aren't property, so you cannot own them. The examples you cited are quite reasonable yet I suspect your definition of "hazard" or "impediment" is far broader than mine, correct me I am wrong. The phrase "best interest of all the people" is quite an elastic one. Society is not a separate organism that is superior to the individuals that comprise it, a group cannot have special rights because in doing so it must deprive individuals of their rights, this is essentially, mob rule.
No. Sometimes a the benefits of trade surplus outweigh the losses. A trade surplus can enable a nation to increase its productive capacity & its level of technological development. In the case of China, trade surpluses were the means by which to acquire what China so desperately needed, Western technology.
Vilhelmo, I think you were confused when you posted this. It doesn’t make sense. Typographical error?? Nations always enjoy increased jobs and median wages due to favorable annual global trade balances, (i.e. trade surpluses). Nations experiencing annual global trade deficits suffer immediate detriment to their numbers of jobs and median wages due to their unfavorable annual global trade balances. But those detriments can under proper circumstances be mitigated or completely over come. Unfortunately those are not the circumstances in USA’s case. Refer to post #107 of “Trade deficits’ are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDP” entitled “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ GDPs”. You might also read or reread post #109 of that thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=259858&page=11 Respectfully, Supposn
I was confused but, regardless,` I meant what I said. No. Not if commodities requiring little labour constitute the bulk of exports. These are a result of bad policy not trade deficits, per se.
As I said, the US was founded as a group endeavour. Individual rights exist only within the context of the national interest and are ultimately subservient to it. The rights granted in the Constitution are not absolute. If they were the state would not execute people or take their property but it can and does. The reality is that there is no such thing as rights, only privileges granted by tyrants. In the US the tyrant is a constitutional democratic republic. In the US there seems to be a lot of confusion over rights these days. There are many who blab about the absoluteness of one right but in the next breath demand that others be put to death for exercising another. The venue of rights discussion in the US has become a Carnival midway, full of hucksters and clowns and charlatans, sowing fear and fleecing the gullible of their money. What you are seeking is have the government unilaterally impose a tyranny of your particular notion of privilege masquerading as rights without regard to the interests and well being of anyone else. Unfortunately for you that is not among the government's remits because, being a democratic republic, the government has some obligation to be aware of, and act in the interest of the people, even if it is only to get elected. The separation of rights into negative and positive is nothing but a bad joke. It seeks to create a false difference between the government saying "you cannot do that" and saying "you must do this" when it is all the same thing, the government controlling behaviour.
Originally Posted by Vihelmo: No. Sometimes a the benefits of trade surplus outweigh the losses. A trade surplus can enable a nation to increase its productive capacity & its level of technological development. In the case of China, trade surpluses were the means by which to acquire what China so desperately needed, Western technology. //////////////////////////////////////////////// Originally Posted by Supposn1: Vilhelmo, I think you were confused when you posted this. It doesn’t make sense. Typographical error?? Nations always enjoy increased jobs and median wages due to favorable annual global trade balances, (i.e. trade surpluses). Nations experiencing annual global trade deficits suffer immediate detriment to their numbers of jobs and median wages due to their unfavorable annual global trade balances. But those detriments can under proper circumstances be mitigated or completely over come. Unfortunately those are not the circumstances in USA’s case. Refer to post #107 of “Trade deficits’ are ALWAYS detrimental to their nation’s GDP” entitled “Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ GDPs”. You might also read or reread post #109 of that thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/showth...259858&page=11 Respectfully, Supposn ///////////////////////////////////// Originally Posted by Supposn1: Vilhelmo, I think you were confused when you posted this. It doesn’t make sense. Typographical error?? … … Respectfully, Supposn Vihelmo, you write that you meant what you said but what you wrote doesn’t make sense. Your post was inexplicit and devoid of meaning. Respectfully, Supposn
A trade deficit means the nation got more than it gave. A trade surplus means the nation gave more than it got. I don't know about you but I would much rather get more than I give.
How can you say that Property Rights & Contract Law don't require government intervention? Is it not government intervention that defines, enforces & grants Property Rights? As defined by who? Property Rights & Contract Law don't exist in nature. Private Property is not a universal feature of Systems of Property Rights.
Except its own. True, but it's not like in a voluntary system people will just accept being poisoned. True, but free market methods are far superior. Look at what the Silk Road did with escrow and a solid reputation system. Relies in the faith of the flock to hold the currency up, we have far better ways of doing this voluntarily - bitcoin is a good example. The government does not regulate the banks, it colludes with them to create a cartel system wherein the banks get to lend out 10 times more than they have - and be sheltered from this extreme risk, and government gets an easy reelection. Individuals themselves can be far better banks than the banks can. True, but I don't need a parent to negotiate playtime with other parents. If people overseas are unwilling to do business with me, that's tough. That said, most of the time people are constantly trying to trade internationally, but governments get in the way with import taxation, quarantine and customs. Refer to #1 True, but at what cost? True (although there are many volunteer services). Where not provided through volunteering, utilizes #7. Doesn't take much expertise to spend other people's money.
From Socialism 101: Socialism begins with a Social Contract that may be termed, a supreme law of the land and which institutes our form of Government. Any questions?
Vihelmo, youve got it backwards. Due to a nations trade surplus, (more than otherwise), they gain additional jobs and the purchasing power of their median wage increases. Due to a nations trade deficit, (more than otherwise), they have less jobs and their median wages purchasing power is decreased. Nations annual global trade deficits ARE (more than otherwise) an immediate detriment to their nations numbers of jobs and median wage; (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced a trade deficit). For an explanation of this, refer to post #107 of the thread Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations GDP Post # 109 of the same thread discusses the mitigating of trade deficits detriments to their nations GDPs. Excerpted from post #107: To an extent nations lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products. It is also conceivable for a nations laborers aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficits detriment to their GDP. Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits. Unfortunately the USAs trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and has not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills so superior as to eliminate our trade deficits of goods that have been occurring each year in excess of a half centurys duration. [Refer to posts #9 and #7 within the thread Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations GDP. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=259858&page=11 ]. Im a proponent of a market driven, self funding, and unilateral Import Certificate trade policy to significantly reduce USAs trade deficit of goods. That trade proposal is excludes the values of specifically listed scarce or precious minerals integral to the assessed value of nations globally traded goods. [Google the Wikipedia article entitled Import Certificates or refer to the thread Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=226393 ] Respectfully¸ Supposn
My best description of a free market is simply an environment in which people are free to act and are constrained only be the property rights of others.
Longshot, legislation within USA government jurisdictions ranging from federal laws down to village ordinances prohibit practices specifically identified and deemed to be detrimental to our economy or society. Human rights are no less worthy than property rights and they should not be defended with lesser vigor. Respectfully, Supposn
To the extent that such laws simply protect the property rights of individuals, they don't interfere with the free market. If they are not laws that protect individual property rights, then they do indeed interfere with the free market. I can't think of a human right that isn't based on property rights.
In my opinion, we may need less public sector intervention in private sector markets merely by subsidizing the least efficient labor to pursue other opportunity costs than compete in a market for labor. With the most efficient labor pursuing an efficiency wage, gains in productivity should be egendered that corresponds.
