- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Trump admin overtly trying to cook the books on trade data, re: trade deficit
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:48 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:48 am
quote:
The leading idea under consideration would exclude from U.S. exports any goods first imported into the country, such as cars, and then transferred to a third country like Canada or Mexico unchanged, these people told The Wall Street Journal.
Economists say that approach would inflate trade deficit numbers because it would typically count goods as imports when they come into the country but not count the same goods when they go back out, known as re-exports.
quote:
A larger trade deficit would give the Trump administration ammunition in arguing that trade deals need to be renegotiated, and might help boost political support for imposing tariffs.
Career government employees objected last week when they were asked to prepare data using the new methodology, according to the people familiar with the discussions. These employees at the U.S. Trade Representative’s office complied with the instructions, but included their views as to why they believe the new calculation wasn’t accurate.
#FakeData
ETA: non-gated non-WSJ link
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 9:11 am
19
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:51 am to 90proofprofessional
So how will this get spun?
Blaming Obama? Bringing up Hillary? 3D chess? Or just some melt and cuck comments
Blaming Obama? Bringing up Hillary? 3D chess? Or just some melt and cuck comments
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:53 am to Mir
quote:
So how will this get spun?
Uncucking the numbers?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:54 am to 90proofprofessional
Until this exact bill is passed, wipe your arse with it.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:56 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Until this exact bill is passed, wipe your arse with it.
That's not how it works. Methodology on this stuff isn't directed by laws.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:57 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
it would typically count goods as imports when they come into the country but not count the same goods when they go back out, known as re-exports.
Is this a significant number? I can't imagine why any business would do this on a regular basis intentionally. Or are we talking about components integrated into a new good?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:58 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
That's not how it works. Methodology on this stuff isn't directed by laws.
And I'm saying until it passes and becomes law, speculation about what might occur is as useful as toilet paper.
edit: nevermind, I'm dumb, I should probably read the actual article.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 9:10 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:00 am to 90proofprofessional
Heaven forbid we get creative in working to shrink the trade deficit. The horror.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:00 am to 90proofprofessional
Where does this say that Trump would count the imports that get later exported as imports? This only matters if you count them as imports but not as exports. I don't see any indications of this being the situation.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:00 am to Mir
#alternativefacts
#fakenews
Am I doing it right?
#fakenews
Am I doing it right?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:01 am to 90proofprofessional
Not that I agree with it... Because I don't.
But, there actually is a good reason for them doing what they are doing. Many expert economists have argued for a ears that not removing the re-exports from the numbers does more harm than good from a financial policy perspective.
Simplified example: A car is built in a factory in Japan. The entire economic benefit of the factory, and sub-factories are all enjoyed in Japan. The car is then sent to Japan-America with a high price... And then re-exported with a near-same value as the import. The US economic benefit is negligible.
By including the re-export, you don't get to accurately reflect the impact of those dollars staying in Japan.
Sorry, no link, just something I saw at a trade show symposium a few years ago. I'm sure I'm not doing it justice, but I think any logical thinker can follow the argument: Again, not supporting, just posing it as possible discussion points.
But, there actually is a good reason for them doing what they are doing. Many expert economists have argued for a ears that not removing the re-exports from the numbers does more harm than good from a financial policy perspective.
Simplified example: A car is built in a factory in Japan. The entire economic benefit of the factory, and sub-factories are all enjoyed in Japan. The car is then sent to Japan-America with a high price... And then re-exported with a near-same value as the import. The US economic benefit is negligible.
By including the re-export, you don't get to accurately reflect the impact of those dollars staying in Japan.
Sorry, no link, just something I saw at a trade show symposium a few years ago. I'm sure I'm not doing it justice, but I think any logical thinker can follow the argument: Again, not supporting, just posing it as possible discussion points.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:03 am to LSUTigersVCURams
What does getting creative have to do with lying about the numbers?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:03 am to notsince98
quote:
This only matters if you count them as imports but not as exports. I don't see any indications of this being the situation.
That's literally the criticism of the policy. That's why I bolded it in the OP.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:04 am to Floating Change Up
Also I don't think we tax reexports like a lot of countries do.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:05 am to half cajun
quote:
What does getting creative have to do with lying about the numbers?
It gives us leverage in trade negotiations genius.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:06 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
That's literally the criticism of the policy. That's why I bolded it in the OP.
and nothing that you included specifically states that those imports would be counted as imports. Just a bunch of words like "would" "could" "typically" etc. These are the signs of fake news. I'd like to see something more concrete before taking this seriously.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:06 am to 90proofprofessional
Can't read the article to get the whole picture.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:06 am to Floating Change Up
quote:
But, there actually is a good reason for them doing what they are doing. Many expert economists have argued for a ears that not removing the re-exports from the numbers does more harm than good from a financial policy perspective.
Simplified example: A car is built in a factory in Japan. The entire economic benefit of the factory, and sub-factories are all enjoyed in Japan. The car is then sent to Japan-America with a high price... And then re-exported with a near-same value as the import. The US economic benefit is negligible.
By including the re-export, you don't get to accurately reflect the impact of those dollars staying in Japan.
This doesn't make sense. Think it through. If we want to reflect a negligible economic benefit in the US, you think it'd be appropriate to log such a transaction as an import only, when in reality it is import-then-export? Does the former look more like a net zero US economic effect to you, or the latter?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:08 am to MrLarson
I don't have any subscription and it wasn't gated for me
ETA: added an article from Fortune to OP
ETA: added an article from Fortune to OP
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 9:11 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:08 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
This doesn't make sense. Think it through. If we want to reflect a negligible economic benefit in the US, you think it'd be appropriate to log such a transaction as an import only, when in reality it is import-then-export? Does the former look more like a net zero US economic effect to you, or the latter?
Are these goods just a pass through and shouldn't matter anyway?
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News