If tariffs are bad how would you solve the trade deficit?

If tariffs are bad how would you solve the trade deficit?

the deficit is a made up problem

Shut up and ignore it

DEI to financially reward companies that promote underrepresented nationalities in their supply chain!

Explain how trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing

In the same way I would solve the shit deficit I have with my toilet, by not doing anything about it.

There's nothing to solve. The U.S. exchanges made up printed fiat for real tangible goods and services. And this is a problem for us?

It's a non-issue, your real issue is 40 years of debt maxxing.

Do you really want to depend on a communist country?

Tarries would absolutely be the first step to creating a prosperous, secure nation. Sadly, this is simply a last "hurrah" for the whites before they reverse this policy and complete the globohomo browning.

You don't need to "solve" the trade deficit migger.

communist country

did you forget that hes complaining about deficits to the entire world?

I’d start by undoing the tax cuts that dropped us even further into the hole

Increase my tenants rent. When problem I increase rent so I have no problem and when no problem my tenants have no problem too so I increase rent.

What's so communist about Switzerland, Canada and Denmark?

DEI

Don't
Even
Invest

they don't allow guns

I guess I would start by reading a basic economics textbook.

So, no solution? Big surprise.

Switzerland and Canada both have above average rates of gun ownership.

solutions to made up problems

the state of migatards. whats next, a solution for aliens destroying all crops?

It's not a problem. Don't do anything.

The deficit means they end up with US dollars
They use those dollars to buy american assets and bonds
Essentially trading US assets and paying interest on bonds in exchange for trinkets
That's how I understand it anyway

Yeah man, the country constantly having to borrow money just to pay its interest is not a long term stability issue. Definitely not how empires collapse.

Anyone can buy US dollars regardless of whether or not they trade with the US. You can invest in the US and have assets or bonds by simply exchanging currency.

That has nothing, zero, to do with the trade deficit, you absolute clown.

That's budget deficit, not trade deficit. Completely unrelated.

Switzerland

they don't allow guns

Wrong.

Kind of like inequality

It's a made up problem

It's literally complaining that the grocery store doesn't buy anything from you but you spend hundreds of dollars there for food

Easiest is dollar down vs other currencies, that will automatically get rid of the deficit with Japan, Taiwan, SK, Australia, Europe.

With China that will not work because the currency is not freely tradable, so there tariffs or other measures like a tax on chinese investments or other non-tariff barriers are appropriate.

No, but the answer is investing in industry in places that aren't China. We should be offshoring in places like Mexico instead of tariffing the entire world out of delusions that we can keep up a cheap consumer economy with American labor.

my solution would be to:

-wear a mask
-yell out nazi everytime trump or elon mentioned
-hire more people of color to do nothing
-send out free money to people who don't work

Team up with Russia, help build up Africa a little bit together out of charity, embargo all of Africa and get it addicted to crack and opium, profit.

Americans have money but some Asian shitholers don't have money.
Americans buy cheap stuff from Asia, but Asians won't because American stuff is expensive and they can't afford it.
This is how trade deficit is born.
And you can't force Asians to buy from you with money they don't have.

Turn America into a free market

If the US didn't want people to buy their bonds they wouldn't issue them.
And anyone can end up with US dollar regardless of trade deficits. What the fuck do you even mean with that? You think if you go down to an exchange and get some foreign currency that country now has a trade deficit with you?

Ok, then first you make sure those trinkets have value: educate your fucking population, get them to buy things with value.
They buy in dollars, then you inflate the currency.
BAM, you have just bought shit that has value using funny money that is losing value fast.
OFC if your people insist on buying glass beads and other trinkets, that strategy won't work, so first thing to do: decuplicate the spending on education. But I'm not sure if 10 times 0 will be enough.

America being rich and Vietnam/Cambodia/India/the EU/China (relatively) being poor isn't a problem that we need to fix anon

I'm being told several times over by AI that trade deficits aren't actually a big deal and that basically every nation has some form of debt. Obviously, some more than others, but the US has some unparalelled wiggle room when it comes to deficits. Exemplified by cases where the debt ceiling was raised several times over. And now that Trump essentially ''defaulted'' the debt to be repaid over a longer period of time, there's even less motive to actually consider it to be any type of major issue. I hate having to agree with leftist trannies but it seems to be the truth. There is no real need to worry about trade deficits in the US. Especially if we're talking about government spending on a deficit that benefits the nation's GDP. Yes, I know, it sounds like I'm arguing for commies and trannies, and I don't like it either, but after careful consideration, it seems to be the correct thing to assume.

We'll just make it cheaper with our 30% productivity racial bonus

send out free money to people who don't work

Shitposting online doesn't mean you have job, retard.

Yeah man, the country constantly having to borrow money just to pay its interest is not a term stability issue.

The government is the issuer of currency. It never needs to borrow.

youtube.com/watch?v=pex89N9Oqog

Yes, I know, it sounds like I'm arguing for commies and trannies

Arguing for free trade and free markets does not sound like arguing for commies. Why would you even think that?

I think that people would have respected the tariffs a lot more if you used the argument that we are placing tariffs specifically on China as a counter to the fact that they use slave labor and treat their own citizens like garbage in order to create cheap products to sell to foreign countries. China can do whatever they want to their own citizens, but we can also do whatever we want in terms of controlling our citizens exploiting other countries' citizens purely for profit. It's also why we already have laws against buying and selling diamonds that aren't certified so that they aren't bought in conflict zones.

Everyone knows that China does this and most people obviously don't care, but it would be an argument people can't really combat without looking like massive assholes, since humans (especially the left) tend to operate on emotional based logic and posturing. This way you would both bring manufacturing back while having moral superiority

another post confusing trade and budget deficits

Nigger, government debt is acquired to cover a deficit between government revenue, which comes from taxes, and government spending. It has nothing to do with trade deficit. If you want less debt, cut spending and/or raise taxes. Private citizens buying and selling products abroad has nothing to do with it.

Invade Venezuela, get all the oil in there for pennies.
Be competitive because cheap energy.

A lot of misconception in this comment.

Trade deficits absolutely do contribute to budget deficits. They don't necessarily have to, and you can run a budget deficit while running a trade surplus (Japan), but the foreign sector absolutely plays a role.

Government + private + foreign = 0. It all has to balance. If you run a trade deficit, the government must a deficit as well or it will be the private sector who is in deficit.

A trade deficit means your country is rich and buys everything from other countries. It means you won.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_deficits_hypothesis

I wouldn't.

you should have voted for the child sex traffickers

No.

Stop exporting USD and US treasuries

I would improve all levels of education so morons like you aren’t produced thinking that a trade deficit is a problem.

You MAGAtards are unironically retards. Unbelievable.
How about study the BASICS of economic terms and concepts before discussing around on the internet?

Stop buying usually shit that gives (them) more of your money.

Yes, but there are reasons you wouldn't necessarily want a large one or one that was skewed in the way the US one is (heavy on goods imports and services exports).

why is trade deficit bad?

i trade my worthless pieces of paper
you make me an iphone

Look up the USA government credit rating compared to other countries and do the math. We could have literally issue debt and export USD for decades if not centuries. Yeah of course the rating agents are pawns of the banks/government it doesn't fucking matter, debt is how you build an empire

They are closely related. The USG partially funds its deficits by borrowing from foreign creditors and borrowing from the Fed (which is an euphemism for printing money). Bonds and dollars are exported, goods are imported

Nope. What's your model? The government does not have to borrow money because people are buying imports. They do it with their own private money, not tax revenue which is used to fund government spending, which again is determined by the government itself, not by trade.
This model shows the opposite, the budget deficit impacting trade deficit, and it even acknowledges that the opposite happened in the '90s when there was a trade deficit and a budget surplus.

It can make you too dependent on imports, easier to cut off, loss of capability, less leverage in trade negotiations, etc. But there is a school of thought that echoes what you think and some exporting nations themselves (like Germany) have questioned whether trading their output for securities is actually a good deal.

You faggots rely too much on strawman arguments. The two are interconnected.

funds its deficits by borrowing from foreign creditors

Simply because they're allowed to buy US government debt bonds, it doesn't make a difference who's lending to you as long as you both agree on the terms and it's not caused by the movement of goods in and out of the country.

If tariffs are bad how would you solve the trade deficit?

It's solved by diplomacy, soft power and other deals.

The two are interconnected.

In very vague roundabout ways when you stretch the definitions and start talking about current account deficits, not in terms of it actually impacting government revenue and spending. There is zero reason why the government has to increase its spending because you bought a product from another country.

The trade deficit is why manywe have so much debt with foregin countries.
Dollars leave the country, foreign countries take those dollars, and reinvest them in bonds.

chudda you told me nothing was going to happen

The USG partially funds its deficits by borrowing from foreign creditors

The United States is the issuer of currency. It never needs to borrow. That is not what is happening in bond sales. I posted a video link up thread.
The government does not borrow money period. Tax revenue does not fund government spending -- governments spend by issuing new money.

In the event of a trade deficit, the government MUST run a deficit itself or the private sector will be in deficit. There are only two origin points for tax credits (currency): 1) the government 2) chartered commercial banks creating deposits. If the government is cutting spending, raising taxes, or both, it is reversing the flow of tax credits. If the foreign sector is in deficit, the only place for the government to acquire its surplus is to draw down from the private sector who must get their tax credits from previous savings or new bank credit.

The government must run the deficit because it is the only one capable of doing so sustainably.

there is no deficit if you count software and services

I have a bottle of trade fluid in the back of my truck that will fix the problem. I'll sell it to you for $500,000.

I should have mentioned also that the reason I would take this approach is because the trade deficit isn't necessarily the problem or the thing that Americans want to be solved, the people who voted trump in essentially want a return to when manufacturing was an American staple and also for foreign countries to buy our goods and services. The fact is that they don't WANT to buy our goods and the primary reason is because it makes more sense SHORT TERM (thats the key here) to buy many things cheaper and shittier rather than an expensive object that will last and that many of our products arent high enough quality to where people who prefer wuality over quantity would rather purchase from us.

This solution can only either be one of three ways:

Find some way to produce goods of such a high quality and decent price that they compete with mass produced garbage

Lower the cost of manufacturing goods to such an extreme that you can sell them for less than China which produces them for a fraction of the cost of most countries by using essentially child slave labor and cutting corners everywhere

Find a way to deter people from purchasing products that are bought from China

Anyway this is just my retarded uneducated take. I think orange man is attempting the third option and has been convinced by his followers that long term option 2 by using new technology like AI is how we will be able to compete. The messaging for using option 3 could have been significantly better than "we want free trade" and instead be "we don't want to buy products made by slavery". Do I actually care about noodle nigger bug men? Not really, but it's the most politically effective argument

Friedman doctrine IN -> increasing wealth gap and decreasing quality of life OUT

“Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome”

In very vague roundabout ways when you stretch the definitions

So essentially the entire field of economics

Tax revenue does not fund government spending -- governments spend by issuing new money.

This is not entirely accurate, government spending is mostly funded by tax revenue, and even in very extreme circumstances such as during the pandemic, government spending was funded almost 50/50% by tax revenue. Other periods of time tax revenue does actually cover most of government spending, 20% of which being on a deficit under normal circumstances. That is referring to US government spending, which in comparison to other developed nations, can be said to be lower. And even then, tax revenue is actually a pretty large chunk of government spending.

Invest money in actual American businesses and reintroduce the law limiting corporations ability to buy back stocks

The same way China, Japan, and Germany did. Start making things that people want to buy.
Or end the global dollar system, thereby forcing a devaluation in the USD.

The trade deficit is why manywe have so much debt with foregin countries.

No it's not, the debt is there because the government chooses to spend more than it collects in revenue. Simply go back to having a surplus like in the '90s and you can pay the debt.

Dollars leave the country, foreign countries take those dollars, and reinvest them in bonds.

Buddy they don't "take the dollars from trade", dollars are available to buy in any currency exchange market, you don't need to sell anything to an American to take your money and exchange it for dollars, nor do you need trade in order to buy US bonds.

The government does not borrow money

Except it does and even pays interest on the debt it has.

Tax revenue does not fund government spending

Nigger several items in the budget are literally linked as a certain percentage of revenue.

governments spend by issuing new money

No. Printing extra money and throwing it into the economy out of nowhere has a nearly 1:1 impact on inflation and is a retarded move you only see in shitholes like Venezuela. Normal countries either raise taxes or borrow money to cover their budget deficits.

The government must run the deficit because it is the only one capable of doing so sustainably.

The government spending more money than it taxes does not in any way cover any private sector "deficit" cause by you importing products. The US ran a budget surplus and a trade deficit for years in the '90s just fine and there is no reason it can't do it again.

It's interesting because I've seen some Republicans/conservatives on X vehemently turn into leftists over the tariffs issue.

Makes you wonder how prominent Chinese money is not only in our economy/business, but also our politicians and the entire media/journalist sphere. I've seen people do a total 180 on Trump over this, like shining sunlight on a vampire or something

The trade deficit has nothing to do with money the government spends our receives. It's all private money. You buy a $30 vibrating dildo from China, that goes to the trade deficit. I don't think you should mess around with stocks if you can't even grasp that.

The budget deficit is the sum of the trade deficit and domestic private sector saving.

The people want cheap things to consoooom without seeing where and how the slop is made essentially. We (humanity) are basically just stalling out until we can ethically have robot slaves instead of human ones to solve all of our problems

Stop exporting USD and US treasuries

That's how you get giga inflation and a depression.

we get tangible goods and resources

they get fiat currency

It's not a problem

are you part of the same group that brigaded Anon Babble for years?

we get plastic and chinesium trash that piles up in landfills.

They get magical notes that buy real estate and businesses in white countries.

It's lose lose, the west has fallen, global Babylon inc

Taxes are not used for revenue. Don't take my word for it, take Beardsley Ruml's -- former chair of the NY Fed.

nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/taxes-for-revenue-are-obsolete.html

Except it does and even pays interest on the debt it has.

The US is the issuer of currency. The only thing is accepts as payment for bonds is its own currency -- it's own already existing debt. Bonds are an asset swap, from non-interest bearing debt to interest-bearing debt. They are not functionally required at all. It is a self-imposed legal mechanism.

Nigger several items in the budget are literally linked as a certain percentage of revenue.

These are things done for political reasons or from misunderstandings about how the system works (quite possibly deliberate misunderstandings.

No. Printing money and throwing it into the economy out of nowhere has a nearly 1:1 impact on inflation

Governments spend money by issuing new money. Remember Elon and Ted Cruz's pretend shock at "magic money computers". That's how it actually works. Taxes are utilized for managing inflation, redistributing income, and behavior modification (sin tax on cigarettes, tax credit for having kids) as former NY Fed chair Ruml explains in the article I'm linking. And private credit, along with input price increases (oil), have historically driven inflation -- not government spending.

shitholes like Venezuela

Venezuela's core problem was WHY they had to monetize their debt -- their oil sector became less productive.

The government spending more money than it taxes does not in any way cover any private sector "deficit" cause by you importing products.

You are arguing something different, I think. Government + private + foreign = 0.

The US ran a budget surplus and a trade deficit for years in the 90s

During the run up to the dotcom crash because the private sector was in deficit.

Lower corporate taxes to 0.
Reduce regulation massively.
Flood the country with immigrants to increase wage competition, lowering labor prices.
Protect businesses from crime like theft and vandalism by passing and upholding relatively extreme punishments for offenders.
Reduce income taxes on everybody, including the rich, incentivizing them to open businesses in the USA and also sell more corporate debt for quicker expansion.
Reduce capital gains taxes incentivizing more purchases of equity in companies, allowing more collateral to borrow against.

I feel like there is a fundamental misunderstanding of WHERE money comes from.

You don't have any money until the government spends it into existence first. That's the origin point. So if the foreign sector is running a deficit and the government is running a surplus, the only way the government can do that is if the private sector -- who can only get its tax credits from the government or private bank credit -- is the one running the deficit.

Make a concerted effort to declassify and commercialize glownigger research that has been locked up behind the Invention Secrecy/National Security/Atomic Energy Act(s)

By providing high quality products and services at an affordable price?

Your discussion is based on irrelevant technicalities

Where did I argue otherwise?

"the government does not borrow money"
"but it issues IOUs in the form of securities"

Besides, I think you are incorrect in a sense. The central bank issues new money. The central bank is not the government, it is a part of the government. But you treat the government as if it was a monolithic entity.

Only if you lump all consumer spending under the private sector. You can have a budget surplus, trade deficit, private business surplus, and a foreign-skewed consumer deficit. And consumers will always have a deficit, that's literally how consumption works. You have a trade deficit with walmart.

The plan was to obfuscate the associated debt with monetary policy until history started again and our guns kept us on top

Okay, when the government spends to a deficit it has already net credited the bank reserves. By identity the money is already in the system. So they've already created it when they spent to a deficit. The bonds come in after the fact, because.
I think you're trying to make a political argument or something. Government + private + foreign = 0. This is accounting.

I think it's not really one way or the other. Of course people always want their shit to be higher quality, but that doesn't mean they're going to buy it over cheap shit that breaks if they are getting a "better deal". For example, if you toast bread only once a month why would you buy a $100 American toaster over a cheap chink $15 toaster from Walmart? Most people are going to buy the $15 one and throw it away when they move or when it breaks

America has had nothing but a trade deficit since the late 70s btw

Personally, I don't have a problem with sacrificing child Xi Ching King to the Global Capital Shoggoth, but I'm not socially unaware enough to believe the same is true for my fellow Americans. You're right draping the issue in moral faggotry is good polemics that would make it more digestible to normies. And moreover, I don't even think a trade deficit matters for all items.

Late 60s actually, was caused by the Vietnam war. That's why France wanted its gold back. The Nixon shock locked the US into persistent trade deficits though.

The trade deficit isn't a real problem.
For a normal economy, it would be, but the US economy had such stable and rapid growth that it simply outpaced the money it was losing in trade, and in the process that capital bleed financed the whole world's financial system.

Cutting off the US trade deficit essentially ends the power of the US dollar. It will do far more harm to american soft power (and its ability to wield that soft power to realize financial goals) than it will benefit US finances, even assuming the decoupling could be performed without a crash.

Because it doesn't require solving, only dumbfuck Shitpublicans don't understand how their own economy that made them rich in the first place operates

Trump is the best proof of how you can be rich and very, very retarded at the same time

If you included services, the remaining amount could be fixed with measures purely controlled in the US.

smaller targeted tariffs, strategic investment in certain industries according to priority, and leashing the ridiculous rentseeking that has necessitated wage inflation for americans