Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The United States most recently had a trade surplus in 1991. Unsurprisingly we were in a recession in 1991. The U.S. also ran surpluses during the Great Depression.

Hmmm...


1 posted on 12/04/2004 11:56:27 AM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: rdb3

Agreed. Let's put this archaic concept on the old ash-heap right next to mercatilism and protectionism.


2 posted on 12/04/2004 12:05:11 PM PST by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3
To begin with, the dollar has been falling for the last two years, yet the trade deficit has continued to rise, hitting a record $51 billion in October. In a 1977 study, economist Arthur Laffer researched fifteen currency devaluations, and found that the trade balance of the devaluing country tended to worsen on average.

There's a more recent Federal Reserve study that found the same thing. Another thing not mentioned is the article, is the affect on the price of all that oil we import.

5 posted on 12/04/2004 12:31:25 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal Creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3

Should have put Walmart is Evil in the title. That way everybody would read this very good article.


6 posted on 12/04/2004 12:32:51 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal Creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3

At some point you have to make something that someone wants to buy. Really. You can try to justify trade deficits and deficit spending all you want, but they are really bad things.


7 posted on 12/04/2004 12:36:17 PM PST by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3; Moonman62; Nick Danger; Dog Gone; Travis McGee; AdamSelene235; Howlin
"If a cheap currency were the path to prosperity, Turkey, Brazil, and Argentina would be world economic powers, while the U.S., England, and China would be basket cases. The opposite is true."

Straw man alert.

What the author above fails to understand (being generous and not presuming that he deliberately ignored facts) is that the Dollar isn't fairly valued.

That's the fundamental flaw of the crowd that is criticizing the current fall of the Dollar...that the Dollar was fairly valued in the past.

It wasn't.

For decades, the U.S. Dollar has been artificially propped up by foreign governments and central banks. The U.S. has even *cooperated* with such behavior by coordinating currency interventions.

...

Now fast forward to today: all in the world that the U.S. is doing now is simply *not* intervening in the currency markets to aid Asia and Europe in keeping the Dollar propped up.

That's it. We're simply not continuing our old behavior of intervening in the currency markets to keep the Dollar overvalued.

In the absence of U.S. market intervention, Asia and Europe are left to hold up the Dollar on their own...and they simply don't have economies large enough to maintain that trick forever.

They want to keep the Dollar propped up, but they can only hoard U.S. Dollars for so long, and the more that the Dollar falls, the worse position those foreign governments are in (with regard to keeping the Dollar propped up). As the Dollar falls further, it becomes even *more* difficult for them to push it back up.

...And the more that the Dollar falls, the more expensive their exports to the U.S. become, making them less competitive.

Eventually, the Free Market will prevail and the U.S. Dollar will be fairly valued again (after a substantial fall from its earlier heights). At that point, the trade deficit will reflect a Free Market balance.

We're not quite there yet, however. The Dollar still isn't fairly valued. For one thing, the Chinese Yuan to Dollar peg has to be broken first.

But even when the Dollar falls to that Free Market valuation, it still won't be "cheap."

We're not talking about Argentina or Wiemar Germany here; we're merely talking about the Dollar finally becoming fairly valued again - instead of maintained at orbital altitudes.

18 posted on 12/04/2004 1:32:15 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3

"Boaz noted that he ran up trade deficits with his grocer, dentist, and department store, all of which bought nothing from him. On the other hand, Boaz had a trade surplus with his employer, along with the publisher of his book."

First sentence means that he bought items without paying for them (on credit). So that everyday he doesn't pay interest on these goods and services increase dramatically. Then these bills are handed over to the collection agency who hounds the poop out of him causing him stress and emotional turmoil until he goes to a doctor who prescribes high-cost medicine and those bills are eventually turned over to the collection agency too, causing further stress and emotional anxiety until he keels over with a heart attack. The trade surplus with his employer doesn't exist because if he doesn't work because of stress and anxiety, he doesn't get paid. When the man dies, the big loser is the publisher who advanced the cash and will receive not one iota on a book that will never be written.

Weird how that trade surplus and deficit works.


19 posted on 12/04/2004 1:46:03 PM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3

We have trade deficits. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.


21 posted on 12/04/2004 1:58:33 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3
This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen. At the heart of the author's argument is the following statement:

"If a country is buying more goods and services from the rest of the world than it is selling, the country must also be selling more assets to the world than it is buying."

Yes, the US is selling assets. The US is selling a vast amount of government securities to foreign central banks, who currently purchase about 40% of the government debt market. This is the only reason US interest rates are as low as they are right now.

These bond purchases make-up a large percentage of the difference in the trade deficit.

If these banks decide not to buy because they are already heavy in dollar assets (which both Japan and China are already) and switch to a competing currency (say the Euro), US interest rates will spike and we will be in big trouble very quickly.
27 posted on 12/04/2004 2:18:03 PM PST by Stratman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3

thank you. the sky is not falling, after all.


32 posted on 12/04/2004 5:24:30 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (if a man lives long enough, he gets to see the same thing over and over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3
rdb3 wrote "The United States most recently had a trade surplus in 1991. Unsurprisingly we were in a recession in 1991. The U.S. also ran surpluses during the Great Depression."

Actually the US ran trade deficit of -27.5 billion in 1991, the combination of a merchandise balance of -77.2 billion and a service balance of +49.7 billion. The current account balance had small surplus in 1991, due to foreign governments' reparation for U.S. military expenditures in the first Gulf War.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5722&sequence=0
34 posted on 12/04/2004 10:30:45 PM PST by fallujah-nuker (I like Ike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3
I think it all depends on the details. Devil is in the details.

How we end up with deficits or surpluses matters a lot more than the mere notion of one or the other.

45 posted on 12/05/2004 10:00:08 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3

They get our money, but we get their stuff.


49 posted on 07/21/2005 3:07:18 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson