- 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
re: Trump admin overtly trying to cook the books on trade data, re: trade deficit
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:09 am to MrLarson
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:09 am to MrLarson
quote:
Are these goods just a pass through and shouldn't matter anyway?
Probably almost completely so. So why would we log the coming-in part but not the going-out part, if not to inflate import numbers?
1
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:11 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Well the leverage would be based on a lie. That's not being creative. That's just lying to get what you want genius.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:11 am to 90proofprofessional
Do this plus make th U-6 the official number on employment.
Show the people that the hill we need to climb is bigger than they think.
Show the people that the hill we need to climb is bigger than they think.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:11 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
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.
Any sane person would argue that a car imported in to the country and then exported to another country should not be counted as an export.
Where does the actual purchase money for the product created wind up? Where were the jobs created?
They weren't in the pass through country.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:12 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
It gives us leverage in trade negotiations genius.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:13 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
if not to inflate import numbers?
Sounds like some creative accounting to me.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:13 am to 90proofprofessional
Handiwork of Stephen Miller, no doubt
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:14 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Do this plus make th U-6 the official number on employment.
I'm fine with U6 or something other than currently used as the headline inflation number.
But there is no merit whatsoever in the change described in the OP. None.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:15 am to Loserman
quote:
Any sane person would argue that a car imported in to the country and then exported to another country should not be counted as an export.
Where does the actual purchase money for the product created wind up? Where were the jobs created?
They weren't in the pass through country.
So should they be counted as imports and count against the trade balance?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:16 am to 90proofprofessional
"Re-exporting".
Sounds like some kind of grey-market operation BS that's about an inch away from the likes of shysters selling ship containers from Nigeria full of cigarettes or something.
I mean, probably some legitimate reasons to pass through some goods like this but c'mon...why the hell would this type of business be counted toward legitimate units of export?
Sounds like some kind of grey-market operation BS that's about an inch away from the likes of shysters selling ship containers from Nigeria full of cigarettes or something.
I mean, probably some legitimate reasons to pass through some goods like this but c'mon...why the hell would this type of business be counted toward legitimate units of export?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:18 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:Trump needs no ammunition in the trade discussion. None. He campaigned on it. He was elected to fix it.
A larger trade deficit would give the Trump administration ammunition in arguing that trade deals need to be renegotiated
If anything, the maneuver would make it appear he'd done less to fix it.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:18 am to Floating Change Up
quote:That's what I was thinking. I'm definitely not a Trump fan but, based on my limited knowledge of this subject, it seems like there's a good argument for changing the way re-exports are counted.
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.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:18 am to Knight of Old
quote:
why the hell would this type of business be counted toward legitimate units of export?
because it's counted toward legitimate units of import
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:19 am to Knight of Old
Why should they count as imports?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:21 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
definitely not a Trump fan but, based on my limited knowledge of this subject, it seems like there's a good argument for changing the way re-exports are counted.
No matter which way you think is best for re-exports to be counted, what they are doing here is certainly wrong and objectively worse than what they have been doing.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:21 am to Lou Pai
quote:
So should they be counted as imports and count against the trade balance?
Already answered in my post.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:22 am to Loserman
quote:
Already answered in my post.
Nope.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:23 am to Loserman
Not sure I see the answer to my question in your post, since you are discussing exports and not imports.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:27 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Do this plus make th U-6 the official number on employment.
Show the people that the hill we need to climb is bigger than they think.
Wow ??
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:28 am to 90proofprofessional
stopped reading at WSJ! 
Page 2 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News