Posted on 02/13/2016 9:35:55 PM PST by Helicondelta
>>Growth tends to reduce our budget deficit and increase our trade deficit.<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Trade deficits have been increasing since the late ‘70s for many reasons, but Growth is NOT ONE OF THEM. It started with OPEC oil shock, but an even bigger element was the establishment in 1971 of U.S. dollar as the de facto reserve currency of the world — awarding the U.S. economy with a NO-LIMIT CREDIT CARD for purchase of goods from overseas (especially after Reagan/Volcker settled things down). This inevitably destroyed our manufacturing, because it was cheaper to buy overseas, from countries hungry for the currency required to buy oil, than to build here.
The problem with our NO-LIMIT CARD is that WE HAVE ALMOST MANAGED TO EXCEED IT, and in the meantime we have burned so many bridges to get to this point (loss of manufacturing and other jobs; consumer demand for cheap foreign iPads, cars etc.), that it will be painful to snap back to build-it-ourselves and pay-as-you-go.
Again, the TRADE DEFICIT is NOT CAUSED by GROWTH. That is another vile canard of the globalists, who are happy to see the U.S. drive right over the cliff.
And, seeing that this is a conservative forum, you don't see many people trumpeting the call for higher taxes . . . you have to drag it out of them.
Actually, there is a fairly strong statistical correlation between increasing trade deficits and increasing economic activity, for the simple reason that when the economy becomes more healthy, we buy more stuff.
It’s two things caused by the same root cause. Read my earlier post.
For that to be realistic, we need to have places for people to work and earn a living. Most people are not intelligent or educated. They need to punch a time clock and be told what to do. I'd rather have them working then sitting at home binge-watching TV shows and collecting my hard-earned money in the form of welfare checks.
I saw your post, and stated that there is a fairly strong statistical indication that the trade deficit is affected by economic growth, with the trade deficit rising as economic growth increases.
If you look at trade deficits going into and coming out of recessions, you'll see I am right.
Again, the TRADE DEFICIT is NOT CAUSED by GROWTH.
You should argue that claim with someone who made it.
That is another vile canard of the globalists,
Yeah, those guys are annoying. Do you have a good definition of the term?
Agree and politics are for labor to respond in kind to gloBULLists take over of labor arbitrate across international borders. At some pint one of the political parties will take up the case, hopefully it is Trump. Go Trump Go!
Dear Jim,
I was like many Trump supporters in 2008... Indifferent to the evil of abortion and a Rudy Guiliani supporter.
When you took a stand for life during that election cycle it began to change my views on the subject.
Now your site is overrun wil Trump supporters... Who could not care any less about the life issue and who support a man who thinks Planned Parenthood does wonderful things.
It’s your site. That’s all I’ll say.
Definition of globalist:
Someone who favors increasing the power of global institutions relative to national or local ones, including institutions established by international treaty such as WTO, GATT, U.N., NAFTA, PPT; someone who favors PROTECTIONISM FOR GLOBAL CAPITAL FLOWS; and, multinational corporations capable of dominating markets using labor, capital and other resources from different locations, including those with very different laws and morality, to drive out local producers.
Please note, IF YOU ARE LIBERTARIAN or Free-Market CONSERVATIVE, that globalism IS NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE. It replaces regulations we can control, through our votes, with those that are completely outside our sovereign reach.
someone who favors PROTECTIONISM FOR GLOBAL CAPITAL FLOWS
What do you mean here?
It replaces regulations we can control, through our votes, with those that are completely outside our sovereign reach.
Which regulations are ever "outside our sovereign reach"?
I don’t know what the answer is; I just can’t accept that so many Americans have basically been retired and will never work again.
>> someone who favors PROTECTIONISM FOR GLOBAL CAPITAL FLOWS
>>>>>>>What do you mean here?
It means 2 things, basically:
1) Forcing through laws to make it easy for international capital to take over lands, resources, markets etc. in target countries, despite what their citizens might want. This is what is happening in Mexico due to NAFTA, and is a significant part of our immigration problem . . .the part we do not see as directly as our own loss of jobs and industries.
2) It means maintaining exchange rates, often pegged to dollar, so that global investors can remove their money at any time with minimized currency risk. The Great Depression, for example, was caused by the austerity programs put in place to try and return currencies to pre-WWI exchange rates for the benefit of global bankers.
>>>>>Which regulations are ever “outside our sovereign reach”?
The WTO, the international courts, and treaties. You should research the WTO for example. It was able to tell the State of California it could not ban a certain gasoline additive. It was able to tell Tuna manufacturers and the U.S. Congress it is NOT ALLOWED to put the words “Dolphin Safe” on Tuna cans, because this disadvantages Mexican fishing industry. This is really MUCH bigger issue than most people are aware in terms of our sovereignty.
There are many circumstances, though I am not a legal expert, where it is illegal to allow favoritism for American products over foreign. Ask yourself . . . Why would politicians allow this? Hint: They are bought and paid for . . . something almost everyone on this site has come to understand, to our regret.
I would add that the EU extra-national regulations against protecting borders means that if any EU country is slack in its immigration policies, they all are. This is becoming a huge issue over there for obvious reasons.
Because free market competition means we all get better products when American companies must compete on a level playing field with the world. “Favoring” American products over foreign products is socialist, protectionist, anti-capitalist, anti-conservative crap policy.
We haven’t lost any sovereignty until the day an outside authority can come into the U.S. and arrest people for how they label cans or whatnot. It will never happen. These states are choosing to follow a trade pact because they will benefit from the concessions the other side makes to them at the same time. It’s a simple, fair deal. We have total freedom to break the deal and do what we want, but then we can’t expect the other country to honor the parts of the deal we wanted.
The idea that the Great Depression was caused by what you say it was caused by is utterly ludicrous.
So if a rich guy from China wants to buy a mine in the US from a willing seller, US citizens who don't want him to buy should have a veto?
Or did you have something else in mind?
This is what is happening in Mexico due to NAFTA, and is a significant part of our immigration problem
What do you mean?
It means maintaining exchange rates, often pegged to dollar, so that global investors can remove their money at any time with minimized currency risk.
You think countries shouldn't be able to peg their currency if they want? Isn't that their decision?
WTO for example. It was able to tell the State of California it could not ban a certain gasoline additive.
Do you have a link to this?
No, the states follow the trade pacts because they do not wish to pay steep fines.
I’ll let you do your own research on the GD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.