Posted on 06/07/2005 8:14:42 PM PDT by A. Pole
Yes, the extent to which lawyers dominate the political leadership of this country is truly scary.
The democrats are the least of your problems. As far as I know, we are still "one nation under god..." Don't let yourself be blinded by what amounts to a "family squabble in the larger scheme of things.
Guess you didn't read Greenspan. The chart doesn't need to provide "proof" pre-2001 of a relationship, as the theoretical fundamentals are "Adam Smith" axiomatic and well known. And the chart admirably demonstrates what has happened since.
Did you read the Greenspan article? Do you claim to know better than Greenspan? He thinks the falling dollar has to dissuade imports and rebalance trade at some point. I personally am not sanguine about the prospects, and believe currency debauchment unwise, but I certainly HOPE he is right.
The question is, are the countervailing strategic economic policies (i.e., securities reinvestments in U.S. treasuries) of the exporting countries finally being overwhelmed by the general drag on the markets they have effectuated?
Have we reached, indeed, gone beyond a tipping point?
These are points which need to be widely disseminated amongst our public policy community. These guys are not rubes. They know what they are doing. And maybe its our policy community that has snookered itself.
True enough, I have come to believe this (our lives) is merely a test.
Remind me to post the "old prospector story", it will bring tears to every free traders eyes.
You provide a chart to prove a relationship. The title of the chart, if you were right would be "Here Is the Dollar-Deficit Relationship" The fact that the title asks "Where Is the Dollar-Deficit Relationship?" shows that it is not there.
And the relationship is only true since 2001? You know the funny thing about real relationships is that they're true for more than just a 4 year time frame. Especially since the 4 years before 2001 work against your claim of a relationship.
Correlation over the last 4 years is not proof of causation.
Imports to the U.S. *are* counted in the CPI figures.
You said that "foreign travel" wasn't counted in the CPI. That's correct. You then equated "foreign travel" with "imports." That's incorrect.
That bothers me that you would think of yourself in those terms. I'll bet a lot of people are sometimes afraid to state their opinion or join in here for fear of being run off the board or ridiculed because they don't agree on every single thing they "think" is acceptable here.
I can't get into this too much right now, and like the Wal Mart thing, on the surface of it, it isn't all good or all bad for America. Some benefit from the trend, and others suffer. There are shades in between, things vary from region to region, so then you have to start looking for net effects which are visible in every community across the country. Some places are booming, some places go bust, and some are both at the same time (like my area). Now. I'm concerned about the net effect and the future effect, and I don't need to look at charts to interpret what I see happening around me and hear on the news. Kodak shuts down or downsizes a huge plant in New York, Maytag moves a lot of its operations to Mexico, the furniture business in North Carolina is declining, it's happening all the time now and in hundreds of ways around the country, and people are talking about it, noticing it, and it doesn't matter which party they vote.
In some ways free trade is good in that we get lots of nice, cheap stuff, and in later years, I've seen things in stores and on the net from countries we never could purchase from in my narrower, younger world, like Russia, Romania, Argentina, Portugal (my favorite cookware was a store promo from there years back), etc., which formerly you either brought home as a tourist or things just didn't make their way into our markets from some countries.
Almost none of our clothing is made here. I don't know where bedding is made any more, but you can get beds in a bag, but if you want a plain set of full-sized matching sheets with pillowcases that I don't particularly even like, the cheapest I can find anywhere are in the $32+ range, some go in the $150 range (don't shop at Wal Mart, could probably save a little there lol). And they are not as nice as the plain percale or muslin, then no-iron synthetic-cotton blend ones we used to be able to buy in the $10-$20 range in the better stores years ago. I'm going to have to try to find some at garage sales. The nice, bargain ones get grabbed up on ebay like you wouldn't believe! And in all the stores left, K-Mart, Target, Marshall's, it's hard to find a complete set of anything like curtains. They are always out of part of it unless you get lucky and you don't have too many windows or you don't like their selection. I quit shopping the really nice stores years ago because prices got so high, even though I could have at times coughed up the cash, I can't justify in my conscience paying $80-$300 for a dress which I seldom wear any more anyway. I used to sew a lot, but that was for creative purposes, because by the time you buy all the proper stuff to make it really nice, you don't save anything unless it's bargain material or something for a kid.
Some guy on another forum lives in Brazil and commented to me that if they buy outside of their country, they have to pay 80% import tax on certain consumer items. I've also noticed when the big companies like Dell have good deals with coupons they throw out on the net, foreigners can't take advantage of them because the last big ticket item I bought from them I had to check a box that said I would not send it outside of the US, which I had no intention of doing because it was for personal use. I partly understand why they wouldn't want to deal with some foreigners, but I don't know why they are doing it and don't have the time to look into it. Lots of ebay sellers don't like to ship to foreigners, for example, usually for valid reasons. Net effect: less income flowing to America, more flowing out.
What I am getting at is that we are losing some business from foreigners. Surely that affects our GNP. I read about a guy from England who bought a plane ticket to come to New York so he could purchase something and got what he wanted and saved money besides. He either couldn't mail order it or the transaction would have been too expensive otherwise, probably because of duties imposed on his end. I can't remember why it worked out that way.
The first alarm bells started going off in my head many years ago when the corporations started getting so big globally and the UPC code was becoming so ubiquitous in so many countries. Also, the buyout and consolidation scramble started at almost the same time. American corporations don't necessarily have to expand, growing larger and larger, in order to prosper. Growing larger just shuts out the competition and makes that corporation richer, but the net effect may be in the negative when it comes to our GNP when those who can no longer compete with the mega-corporations close their doors forever.
It's not all one way or another way with me. There is some good to it, but now that I have seen the downside in the way of tremendous loss of jobs and loss of our traditional way of life, housing through the roof (good for some, bad for others) I've gotten very negative about free trade, especially when other countries practice protectionism and we don't.
I just don't like what I have seen with people tending to polarize into two classes, either rich or poor, and a fluid middle class which is being squeezed one way or the other. That's what I'm concerned about. I don't care whether they are white collar, blue collar or what. They are all American jobs, and if those who lose their jobs can't find equal or better replacement jobs, it affects all of us, in part, and contributes to the fact that our national foreign debt is so high and social security is in trouble.
Free trade seems to be working against us economically overall. If you can buy cheaper imported products, but lose your job or your housing, utility, and automobile costs go through the roof, and you have less disposable income or no income to buy anything, cheap or not, unless you are lucky and your skill is still marketable in the US, and you can surf the economic waves and come out on top of things.
The saying used to be guns and butter. Now it's guns and jacuzis. We have to have it both ways or our economy will suffer. No more sacrifices for Americans and fighting the terrorists. Enlistments are down. I wonder where that will lead us. Sorry, I've done it again. Too long a post that will cause those who read in shorter blurbs to go into skip mode. Just as well.
Since your children are young, by the time your mind might change or maybe the job market will change.
So is this match between engineers and attorneys?
Was there a time when less US CEOs were MBAs?
So you ingore all fundamental theories...and contradict your own. And you are ignoring the fact that my chart wasn't posted for the purpose of showing a "relationship" (i.e., a straw man argument) which I didn't assert (knowing far better than you the countervailing factorial influences), but current history.
I.e., showing what is actually happening "on the ground" so to speak.
So you mistate what the argument is and focus on the straw man arguments of Griswold (i.e., phony "relationships" of that which is axiomatic), who also refuses to confront the FACT of the resulting currency debauchment of his policies.
Typical of you Todd, but you are firmly embedded on the hook. You believe in free markets (to a doctrinnaire degree and to the point of excess). The dollar is sinking. Don't suppose its the general free market for our currency driving it down so steeply, do you? And what is the largest of fundamentals driving this market (ones you have previously admitted BTW)?
Our trade imbalance...i.e., defict.
And the degree to which those who are exporting to us buy our pretty Treaury Notes to prevent the collapse of the dollar. That is the well known fundamentals of this bizarre chapter in the free trade follies.
The question always was, have we reached a tipping point, where the exporters to us can no longer keep up with the general and increasing drag against our currency their massive and expanding 1-way exporting has created. Certainly not without massive U.S. help, anyways...which has been restrained in our current administration. Laissez faire, after all.
And now, here is the killer for you. This puts you down for the count.
As all who know my philosophy and positions will attest. I don't advocate currency debauchment. I always thought it problemmatic and more self-wounding than the alternatives.
It was always free traders who posited that a dollar decline would "naturally" fix the trade imbalance. Alan Greenspan thought it would. Milton Friedman thought it would. Daniel Griswold and everyone at Cato currently thought it would. Except it isn't, is it?
The U.S. jugular is being hack-sawed open. And it is gushing out its productive industries. China is slurping up all it can handle.
So the question for the free traders is, why isn't it working? Answer: China, and it's currency peg. They are maintaining the peg in the face of virtually all other competing nation's objections...including our own. For five years they mumble bland reassurance and say they will eventually float sometime soon. And then they put it off. Always. And they are keeping their own citizenry and national welfare in a perpetual state of artificially disinflated disadvantage. I predict when they do float if its near term, it will be miniscule and token.
If the Chinese Communists were behaving out of pure general welfare economics, what is best for their people, they would have let it float long ago and reaped a much higher national income. As the Greenspan article expressly discussed, but you evidently blew off and haven't read, (apparently in your maddened lust to still try and snatch "victory" from your ignomimous defeat in debate)...he openly questions why they would endure so low a return (and increasingly lower) on U.S. dollars that are cheaper all the time as against the rest of the world.
The deeper question goes begging in that article then. Since they are ignoring the standard models of economic-incentivized behavior, maybe it is because they are, as I have always maintained, operating on a completely different plane of motivations, a differnt metric. They are in fact behaving as if they are at war with the U.S. An unremitting multifront war...that is only superficially a non-shooting war. For them, spiting themselves in wealth terms is okay, if it ultimately strips us of our industry, and then smashes our economy, and hence the foundation for the world's greatest military which is being daily told to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.....
Meanwhile, what do you do while the hourglass runs low for us? You deny reality. You ignore the actual posts and positions of the American side. Your positions clearly are aiding and abetting "Li333" in terms of your state of denial. In your shrill adamancy you exhibit the classic signs of cognitive dissonance. This denial behavior of yours is approaching the psychotic. Similar liberal-belief based cognitive dissonance in the past (and on into current times) led directly to foreign polices of appeasing military enemies.
This kind of dissonance has been exhibited by others on your side, Poohbah was another exceptional example of that. He, of course, was a rascal in a broad range of topics...but most expressly with the military.
Basically preaching a kind of smug over-the-top reassurance that was braggadocio, and embracing neglect and, frankly, appeasement of our enemies. The irony that results would be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic. Remember Neville Chamberlain's?...Check this out ( a little long but worth the read):
The following is the wording of the printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo- German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
B'zzzt. Incorrect on your part. Imports are "foreign sources." You denied that they were included. You said it. I didn't. Now you say:
"Imports to the U.S. *are* counted in the CPI figures."
Nice debating with you.
Logic chopping is a lo-cal victory.
What theories are those?
And you are ignoring the fact that my chart wasn't posted for the purpose of showing a "relationship" (i.e., a straw man argument) which I didn't assert (knowing far better than you the countervailing factorial influences), but current history.
That's funny. You said to Asclepius under this same chart "Four years of clear correlation". Maybe you don't know what the word correlation means?
1 : the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone
I'd say 4 out of 15 years is less than if it were based on chance alone.
The dollar is sinking.
Sure, if you don't look at the last 3 months when it was rising.
Don't suppose its the general free market for our currency driving it down so steeply, do you? And what is the largest of fundamentals driving this market (ones you have previously admitted BTW)?
Yes, there is a free market for our currency. I agree with the author of the article you took the graph from. "The logical breakdown between deficits and dollar prices is that trade alone does not drive the global flow of monies. Investment is the other half of the equation, and one should think of it as the dominant half".
And then there is this. Looks like the dollar strengthened between 1990 and 2000. Did the deficit decrease? Grow more slowly? No. The deficit more than quadrupled. And look, the dollar is about the same value in 2005 as in 1990. Is the deficit about the same? No. It was less than $81 billion in 1990, over $600 billion in 2004.
If you want to prove that larger deficits cause a declining dollar (which is why you posted the graph, because they happen to move the same way the last 4 years), it might help if a more than 4 of the last 15 years agreed with your assertion.
Figures in US $Millions
Year
|
Exports of Goods and Services and Income Payments
|
Imports of Goods and Services and Income Receipts
|
Trade Balance
|
1960
|
25,940
|
23,670
|
3,508
|
1961
|
26,403
|
23,453
|
4,195
|
1962
|
27,722
|
25,676
|
3,370
|
1963
|
29,620
|
26,970
|
4,210
|
1964
|
33,341
|
29,102
|
6,022
|
1965
|
35,285
|
32,708
|
4,664
|
1966
|
38,926
|
38,468
|
2,940
|
1967
|
41,333
|
41,476
|
2,604
|
1968
|
45,543
|
48,671
|
250
|
1969
|
49,220
|
53,998
|
91
|
1970
|
56,640
|
59,901
|
2,254
|
1971
|
59,677
|
66,414
|
-1,303
|
1972
|
67,222
|
79,237
|
-5,443
|
1973
|
113,050
|
98,997
|
1,900
|
1974
|
148,484
|
137,274
|
-4,292
|
1975
|
157,936
|
132,745
|
12,404
|
1976
|
172,090
|
162,109
|
-6,082
|
1977
|
184,655
|
193,764
|
-27,246
|
1978
|
220,516
|
229,870
|
-29,763
|
1979
|
287,965
|
281,657
|
-24,565
|
1980
|
344,440
|
333,774
|
-19,407
|
1981
|
380,928
|
364,196
|
-16,172
|
1982
|
366,983
|
355,975
|
-24,156
|
1983
|
356,106
|
377,488
|
-57,767
|
1984
|
399,913
|
473,923
|
-109,073
|
1985
|
387,612
|
483,769
|
-121,880
|
1986
|
407,098
|
530,142
|
-138,538
|
1987
|
457,053
|
594,443
|
-151,684
|
1988
|
567,862
|
663,741
|
-114,566
|
1989
|
648,290
|
721,607
|
-93,142
|
1990
|
706,975
|
759,287
|
-80,861
|
1991
|
727,557
|
734,563
|
-31,135
|
1992
|
748,881
|
763,741
|
-38,185
|
1993
|
776,921
|
821,797
|
-69,166
|
1994
|
868,460
|
948,555
|
-97,189
|
1995
|
1,005,645
|
1,075,674
|
-95,069
|
1996
|
1,077,148
|
1,155,489
|
-102,869
|
1997
|
1,194,899
|
1,281,291
|
-107,047
|
1998
|
1,191,206
|
1,347,462
|
-163,153
|
1999
|
1,255,671
|
1,499,762
|
-261,201
|
2000
|
1,416,915
|
1,772,694
|
-375,384
|
2001
|
1,284,942
|
1,632,072
|
-357,819
|
2002
|
1,229,649
|
1,651,657
|
-418,038
|
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Up to a third of scientists have engaged in ethically questionable practices over the last three years, according to a survey published in today's issue of the British science journal Nature.
The surveyed behaviors range from extremely serious acts such as fraud and plagiarism -- which were committed by only a fraction of a percent to 1. 4 percent, respectively -- to acts that are ethically far more ambiguous, such as ignoring data that contradict one's theory.
Study charts science's ethical swamplands One-third in survey veered into gray areas
Thanks for the ping!
Hey Paul, get a grip. Unemployment is low. Wages are high. Inflation and interest rates are low. The economy is expanding. We all know that the bush-bashers are out saying that suddenly all that stuff doesn't matter any more and everything is bad because someone in the services (like Pat Buchanan) would be much more useful to society leaving his job in the service sector to instead be tightening bolts for GM.
Wait a second-- I think we are in agreement after all.
Never mind.
the age issue and the stringent requirements is just a ruse. I see it everyday - they use those factors to exclude americans, because they want the jobs to go offshore for lower costs. nothing else matters. that's why so many middle aged IT/CS/EE guys have simply left the field for good. they have moved on, some to teaching, some to real estate, and unfortunately - some to Lowes and Home Depot.
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.