venezuela

[Mister Moose]

You are over simplifying things to come up with the wrong answer. You are forgetting that when someone purchases something from overseas and uses currency to do it that they get something back of equal value that adds to the domestic economy.

And you are evading the simple result of what a trade imbalance means, and here conflate trade imbalance with a transaction. If I read your very imprecise language correctly, you need to show how the "something of equal value that comes back adds to our economy" as I am not convinced that is necessarily the case.

In previous balance of trade discussions, I pointed out how dollars coming back that acquire our equities instead of our products is not a healthy long term result of a negative balance of trade.

[Bubba]

You are over simplifying things to come up with the wrong answer. You are forgetting that when someone purchases something from overseas and uses currency to do it that they get something back of equal value that adds to the domestic economy.

And you are evading the simple result of what a trade imbalance means, and here conflate trade imbalance with a transaction. If I read your very imprecise language correctly, you need to show how the "something of equal value that comes back adds to our economy" as I am not convinced that is necessarily the case.

In previous balance of trade discussions, I pointed out how dollars coming back that acquire our equities instead of our products is not a healthy long term result of a negative balance of trade.

Of course, if we want to fund our budget imbalance by issuing debt purchased by many foreign (as well as domestic purchasers) they need dollars which, lo and behold, they acquire through sales of products to the US. That flow of dollars back to the US is not considered in the trade deficit, nor are revenues from products made and sold overseas by US companies who, because of US tax laws, have kept those funds overseas; neither, I believe, are service revenues counted in the trade deficit. All of this adds up to why economists can't agree on either the extent of the deficit or whether it's bad, good or indifferent.

Having said all that, if you job goes overseas (for whatever reason) YOUR personal economy just took a hit.

[Kpdemello]

Of course, if we want to fund our budget imbalance by issuing debt purchased by many foreign (as well as domestic purchasers) they need dollars which, lo and behold, they acquire through sales of products to the US. That flow of dollars back to the US is not considered in the trade deficit, nor are revenues from products made and sold overseas by US companies who, because of US tax laws, have kept those funds overseas;

Exactly right - the deficit does not measure foreign investment, nor does it measure activity by U.S. companies that occurs entirely overseas. One must also consider that economies are not static things. The U.S. economy grows and shrinks, though it mostly grows. So if you lose 3% of your economy due to a trade deficit, but your domestic economy grew by 5% during the same period, then you have a net growth of 2%. So just citing to a trade imbalance does not show the whole picture by any means.

Here's more information from a source that tends to be rather conservative:
https://www.cato.org/publications/congr ... de-deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To the original point though, Norway is unique in that they do derive so much revenue from oil and gas, and a lot of that goes directly into the coffers of the government. That's not because of trade imbalance, though. It's because the government owns a huge stake of the oil company that does all the selling. So if you really wanted to emulate Norway, the trick would not be changing the balance of trade it would be having the U.S. government buy huge stakes in oil and gas companies like Exxon so the government can use those profits to fund social programs. According to wikipedia, the U.S. has more oil reserves than Norway, and we sell more natural gas, too.

Ok, ok, that's a bit of sarcasm - Exxon's gross profit for 1 year is a drop in the bucket compared to our national budget. Norway is unique in having a low population with a lot of oil and gas to sell so it works for them. But Norway is not the only socialist country in Europe that is making socialism work for them. See the U.K., Germany, etc. I'm not saying we should be just like these countries, but I don't see why we shouldn't take a look across the pond, see what works, and use it.

[madhatter]

Of course, if we want to fund our budget imbalance by issuing debt purchased by many foreign (as well as domestic purchasers) they need dollars which, lo and behold, they acquire through sales of products to the US. That flow of dollars back to the US is not considered in the trade deficit, nor are revenues from products made and sold overseas by US companies who, because of US tax laws, have kept those funds overseas;

Exactly right - the deficit does not measure foreign investment, nor does it measure activity by U.S. companies that occurs entirely overseas. One must also consider that economies are not static things. The U.S. economy grows and shrinks, though it mostly grows. So if you lose 3% of your economy due to a trade deficit, but your domestic economy grew by 5% during the same period, then you have a net growth of 2%. So just citing to a trade imbalance does not show the whole picture by any means.

Here's more information from a source that tends to be rather conservative:
https://www.cato.org/publications/congr ... de-deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To the original point though, Norway is unique in that they do derive so much revenue from oil and gas, and a lot of that goes directly into the coffers of the government. That's not because of trade imbalance, though. It's because the government owns a huge stake of the oil company that does all the selling. So if you really wanted to emulate Norway, the trick would not be changing the balance of trade it would be having the U.S. government buy huge stakes in oil and gas companies like Exxon so the government can use those profits to fund social programs. According to wikipedia, the U.S. has more oil reserves than Norway, and we sell more natural gas, too.

Ok, ok, that's a bit of sarcasm - Exxon's gross profit for 1 year is a drop in the bucket compared to our national budget. Norway is unique in having a low population with a lot of oil and gas to sell so it works for them. But Norway is not the only socialist country in Europe that is making socialism work for them. See the U.K., Germany, etc. I'm not saying we should be just like these countries, but I don't see why we shouldn't take a look across the pond, see what works, and use it.

[Kpdemello]

What does Michael moore's quote have to do with Norway's successful implementation of socialism?

I'm sure in your mind that was a real zinger of reply, though...

[Dickc]

What does Michael moore's quote have to do with Norway's successful implementation of socialism?

I'm sure in your mind that was a real zinger of reply, though...

Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money. Norway will run out at some point too.

[madhatter]

I'm not sure I ever said the govt should take control of oil production...

yep yer that fvcking stupid....

[Kpdemello]

What does Michael moore's quote have to do with Norway's successful implementation of socialism?

I'm sure in your mind that was a real zinger of reply, though...

Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money. Norway will run out at some point too.

Oh yeah? Whose money is Norway using?

@ MH seriously I sometimes don't think you can read and comprehend English

[madhatter]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/dem ... alism.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yup they're THAT stupid...

[Dickc]

What does Michael moore's quote have to do with Norway's successful implementation of socialism?

I'm sure in your mind that was a real zinger of reply, though...

Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money. Norway will run out at some point too.

Oh yeah? Whose money is Norway using?

@ MH seriously I sometimes don't think you can read and comprehend English

They are using oil income that is declining. It WILL run out.

[Kpdemello]

What does Michael moore's quote have to do with Norway's successful implementation of socialism?

I'm sure in your mind that was a real zinger of reply, though...

Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money. Norway will run out at some point too.

Oh yeah? Whose money is Norway using?

@ MH seriously I sometimes don't think you can read and comprehend English

They are using oil income that is declining. It WILL run out.

Oh. So not other people's money?

I mean I know what you're getting at, but it's a tired cliche and doesn't fit the reality. Norway is one of dozens of countries that employ socialist policies that work just fine, and have been working just fine for decades. I'm not saying we should all sign on with our comrades in the communist party or anything crazy, but just because a policy is socialist does not mean it is always bad or won't ever work. There are socialist programs that work just fine in the U.S.

Ever buy anything from the N.H. liquor store? That's socialism in action right there.

[Mister Moose]

Ever buy anything from the N.H. liquor store? That's socialism in action right there.

Uh huh.

A NH liquor store

1) is selling free market goods produced, and shipped by 100% non socialist companies.
2) is operating in a zero sales tax state that attracts large numbers of out of state buyers, which is free market, not socialism
3) is selling highly desirable goods that are produced in virtually inexhaustible supply by open market producers that are motivated by ... wait for it... profit.

The only thing remotely resembles socialism is that by law only the State can sell liquor. That is mainly a tax collection scheme. The fact that the government controls a single portion of delivering it to the consumer does not make it socialism. A tax structure does not convey socialism.

Is the military socialism? Is our voting mechanism socialism? Does all bourbon cost the same? Is the interstate highway socialism?

There is a difference between infrastructure, that which is necessary to conduct commerce, or that which is necessary to conduct democracy, and socialism which is that which is necessary to control commerce and control the outcome of that commerce (meaning including control of revenue) to ensure equal outcomes. Socialism owns all production, sets all prices, and declares all wages to be equal. There is no equity investment for the individual, as there is no ownership of companies.

[Kpdemello]

So a store wholly owned by the government that sells a product that no one else in the state is allowed to sell is not an example of socialism? Ok fine.

You didn't like my example of the TVA either. Ok, fine.

How about this one: Federal Stafford Loans. The damned commies in the government are actually insuring loans for kids to allow them to go to college. In some cases, they are even paying the interest for them. Can you believe that sh!t? Nah, you probably don't like that example either.

How about this one: Every year the pinko commies in the Federal Government actually give money to farmers of corn, wheat and rice. At the taxpayer's expense! Actually you know what, that's probably not a good example either.

Here's another: Remember when GM and AIG were about to go bankrupt, and the federal government loaned them a sh!tload of money to keep them afloat? Damned socialists rearing their ugly heads again. But ah.. you probably think that example sucks, too.

What about those commie pinko bastards in Massachusetts that set up an entirely government-run, partially government-funded University system called University of Massachusetts? Those red bastards even own and run a hospital! Can you imagine! But wait, that's probably not socialism either.

How about NASA? They are an entirely government-run, government-owned cabal of scientists that until recently had a virtual monopoly on putting satellites into space for private companies. Damned socialist scientist pigs. But wait, that can't be socialism either.

Ah well, I guess you must be right, we don't have any socialist policies in this country at all.

[Kpdemello]

Socialism owns all production, sets all prices, and declares all wages to be equal. There is no equity investment for the individual, as there is no ownership of companies.

I see what the problem is. You are equating socialism with communism. They are not the same. Only in a pure communist system is there no equity investment for the individual and no ownership of companies. I don't think any pure communist systems even exist anywhere today. Even Venezuela is a hybrid system, as private business ownership is allowed there.

As I said earlier, just about every country in the world today is a hybrid system. In the U.S. we lean a lot more toward capitalism and away from socialism, but there's no question that we employ many socialist policies. It's a question of pragmatism. Capitalism isn't perfect. Neither is socialism. The key is to blend elements from both in a way that best benefits society.

So lets not pretend that just because something is "OMG SOCIALISM" that it's automatically bad. That's just being intellectually lazy.

[madhatter]

Socialism owns all production, sets all prices, and declares all wages to be equal. There is no equity investment for the individual, as there is no ownership of companies.

I see what the problem is. You are equating socialism with communism. They are not the same. Only in a pure communist system is there no equity investment for the individual and no ownership of companies. I don't think any pure communist systems even exist anywhere today. Even Venezuela is a hybrid system, as private business ownership is allowed there.

As I said earlier, just about every country in the world today is a hybrid system. In the U.S. we lean a lot more toward capitalism and away from socialism, but there's no question that we employ many socialist policies. It's a question of pragmatism. Capitalism isn't perfect. Neither is socialism. The key is to blend elements from both in a way that best benefits society.

So lets not pretend that just because something is "OMG SOCIALISM" that it's automatically bad. That's just being intellectually lazy.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.