3 ms·

Yes, I linked to the wrong Wikipedia page. Thanks. But no, it's not an instance of the broken window fallacy. Let's say the store owner buys the bread directly

Yes, I linked to the wrong Wikipedia page. Thanks. But no, it's not an instance of the broken window fallacy. Let's say the store owner buys the bread directly from China, and by doing so can offer bread at 20% less than before. So, I pay $0.80 for bread. The store owner saves 20%, which is $0.16. And let's say pay $0.40 for the bread from the Chinese supplier, leaving the baker with $0.24 to spend. I also have an additional $0.20 to spend. If I spend it, the merchant I spent it with saves 20% and spends the other $0.16, then the total GDP contribution is 0.80 + 0.20 + 0.24 + 0.16 = 1.4. I spent $1, but only only received a multiplier of 1.4 instead of 1.8 in the original case. This should be pretty obvious because any money sent overseas stops being multiplied, even if you end up spending the same amount of money total. This, of course, assumes there is a trade deficit with the overseas country.

legitster 4y ago
So... firstly I think you are confused about the nature of the Jones Act. It only affects the domestic shipping industry. There is no overseas country to deal with. And to the extent that the Jones Act creates deadweight loss, it only penalizes the deal with the local baker. >This should be pretty obvious because any money sent overseas stops being multiplied, even if you end up spending the same amount of money total. Even given the above, I have no idea why you would assume this to be true. If someone in a foreign country is paid in US Dollars, the most likely thing to do with it is buy US goods or assets. (In the case of China, that is most likely US securities, but it's still not lost to the US economy). Again, the multiplier effect is only applicable when dealing with an external input to a system. Otherwise, you are arguing that simply raising prices creates economic growth which is clearly not true.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  >There is no overseas country to deal with. There would be if you ended the act and all local shipping manufacturers shutdown so the country had to buy all their ships from Norway.
  - legitster 4y ago
    More likely South Korea, where most of Europe's ships already come from.
- kotlin2 4y ago
  > Again, the multiplier effect is only applicable when dealing with an external input to a system. Otherwise, you are arguing that simply raising prices creates economic growth which is clearly not true. No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the multiplier of a single dollar is based on the percentage of that dollar that stays in the local economy. > Even given the above, I have no idea why you would assume this to be true. If someone in a foreign country is paid in US Dollars, the most likely thing to do with it is buy US goods or assets. (In the case of China, that is most likely US securities, but it's still not lost to the US economy). Yes, that's why I mentioned that my argument is predicated on there being a trade deficit. The U.S. runs a massive trade deficit, so clearly not all the dollars end up back in the U.S. economy. Buying treasuries isn't really relevant because each dollar the government takes in in exchange for a treasury needs to be paid back out.

legitster 4y ago

So... firstly I think you are confused about the nature of the Jones Act. It only affects the domestic shipping industry. There is no overseas country to deal with. And to the extent that the Jones Act creates deadweight loss, it only penalizes the deal with the local baker. >This should be pretty obvious because any money sent overseas stops being multiplied, even if you end up spending the same amount of money total. Even given the above, I have no idea why you would assume this to be true. If someone in a foreign country is paid in US Dollars, the most likely thing to do with it is buy US goods or assets. (In the case of China, that is most likely US securities, but it's still not lost to the US economy). Again, the multiplier effect is only applicable when dealing with an external input to a system. Otherwise, you are arguing that simply raising prices creates economic growth which is clearly not true.

stonemetal12 4y ago
>There is no overseas country to deal with. There would be if you ended the act and all local shipping manufacturers shutdown so the country had to buy all their ships from Norway.
- legitster 4y ago
  More likely South Korea, where most of Europe's ships already come from.
kotlin2 4y ago
> Again, the multiplier effect is only applicable when dealing with an external input to a system. Otherwise, you are arguing that simply raising prices creates economic growth which is clearly not true. No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the multiplier of a single dollar is based on the percentage of that dollar that stays in the local economy. > Even given the above, I have no idea why you would assume this to be true. If someone in a foreign country is paid in US Dollars, the most likely thing to do with it is buy US goods or assets. (In the case of China, that is most likely US securities, but it's still not lost to the US economy). Yes, that's why I mentioned that my argument is predicated on there being a trade deficit. The U.S. runs a massive trade deficit, so clearly not all the dollars end up back in the U.S. economy. Buying treasuries isn't really relevant because each dollar the government takes in in exchange for a treasury needs to be paid back out.