The Brutal Price of a Dollar

The Heritage Foundation ^ | May 31, 2005 | Tim Kane

[Toddsterpatriot]

The crime is for someone like that to act like a flippin' know-it-all.

But I love the big words used when explaining the graph that disproves his point.

(knowing far better than you the countervailing factorial influences)

The chart doesn't need to provide "proof" pre-2001 of a relationship, as the theoretical fundamentals are "Adam Smith" axiomatic and well known.

[Paul Ross]

Well Todd, I see you have been busy while I was away (getting rid of Chairman Ebensteiner here in our Minnesota state GOP) and then celebrating up at the lake cabin over the weekend. T'sk, t'sk. Now all you Phony free traders, take a seat and learn something.

You have collectively misrepresented what I said about the chart...which I cited merely because it proves what has happened the last four years. And devastatingly so.

The question always was (for about the 12th time Todd, shall we say Mr. Know-it-all), has the U.S., with respect to foreign "investments" pumping up our dollar, reached a tipping point? Where such actions actually fail to counterbalance the dollar's slide due to an overwhelmingly bad trade picture...

That was the primary point.

Let me repeat this point another way to try to get past your obfuscations and refusal to legitimately debate: Knowing "investments" are the countervailing force holding up the U.S. dollar (which in fact I presupposed)...you must confront the fact that it appears it has failed to do so the last four years

This demands an explanation from your side. And Kane doesn't give anything close to credible. And "Bush did it" as some on your side purport...doesn't cut it. Laissez faire is his approach. You do believe in the "unseen hand" don't you????? Guess not.

I asked the pertinent question, still unacknowledged by you. Instead you launched into an argument on the chart's "relationships" which I never argued for time-series correlation beyond the last four years. Kane can't deny the last four years. Hence he tries to confuse the issue. You grasp on to his framing of an issue I am not arguing.

We are dealing with multivariant analysis, and those two listed factors have no controls for the foreign entities investment flows. I just pointed to the last four years hard history...and it conclusively destroys Kane's and your side. All your thoughts. All your reasonings. All your excuses. Laid waste. So much for you hunt for Moby Dick, Ahab.

Your failure to respond to my particular points are proof of your sides' disengenousness... Such continued omission of what I said is outright intellectual dishonesty...and indeed it is evidence that your little F-Troop of Disinformation is just a little herd-psychology spin group.

I could rag about how you constantly try to bamboozle folks with your inanity. Probably because you have some nefarious self-interest in Chinese importing. But I won't. :-)

Kane's graphs really do undermine his, and Griswold's thesis pretty decisively.

Let's deconstruct the fairly glaring mistakes replete in Kane's article. It is so richly ironic, that his own charts "does in" his....and your whole spin operation. He argues that we should look at the longer term, not wishing to confront the last four years. Trying to argue things go up and down more or less randomly or so. One can just as cavalierly suggest nations rise and fall, and its okay if the U.S. does too.

I, for one, don't think so. Methinks Mr. Kane is just a tad too unconcerned to be credible in advocating for "our" side.

Meanwhile, while you grasp at the last 3 months of the EU's French-driven decline, Kane grabs for the 15 year long period chart as follows on the Dollar against the "Euro" (which did not even exist back then)

What does it prove? That 12 long years of increased wealth in the U.S. as measured by the dollar's pain-staking gains against at least some European main currencies, has vanished completely in the last four.

Most of the Free Traders who apologized for the "creative destruction" of the U.S. industrial base routinely genuflected in the direction of the appreciating U.S. currency. Now that its evaporating under trade stress...the phony free traders have developed a sudden amnesia... omitting their history of praising U.S. dollar appreciation. Kane's dollar-praising amnesia is now starkly contrasted with his apologia and rationalizations for the collapsing dollar, and pretending it is without any cost to the economy...and national well-being. The disproofs of that is seen in a variety of commodity areas, with oil, LNG, steel, copper, tin, lead, beef, etc.

Then there is the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Chart from '92 to 2004:

This tries to apologize for the huge increase in U.S. imports primarily by two main misrepresentations:

(1) Kane argues by captioning in his chart and in the body of his text that U.S. "exports" also "surged". But note, this was at only half the rate of growth of the imports. Which now eclipse U.S. exports by over $620 billion a year and are running on a track nearing $70 billion in the red each month to set a new annual record.

There is a companion rationale inisipidly advanced to apologize for this discrepancy which I am sure everyone has heard ad nauseum. You would think Kane et al. would be tired of proffering the same tired shibboleth:

Argument (2) is that when the imports accelerate faster than our exports...it is a sign of a "strong" economy. Fifteen years of progressively increasing trade imbalance makes this more than a little suspect. The free traders used to say that a falling dollar would make us more competitive. Now we have Kane saying it doesn't matter that it doesn't. Anyways, a trade imbalance is demonstrably also a sign of a weak economy. And let me remind you Todd, you are the one who said as follows: "Countries that have problems with trade deficits are those countries that have weak currencies. " So which is it Todd?

And stop the presses. Undercutting Kane's thesis is this factual conundrum: a large and growing portion of the U.S. "exports" are in fact components shipped abroad...for combination with foreign materials and fabrications, and re-import to the U.S. The Mexican Maquilidoras are a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. These "exports" merely facilitate increased imports!

Thus, the argument that the chart is showing export strength...may in fact be showing precisely the opposite...that the U.S. is becoming more and more prone to depending on imports out of competitive weakness ...ever-more dependent on lower-cost foreign labor, and hence economically imbalanced in its payments.

Then there is the chart I have been showing now for sometime, which you have finally looked at, but as usual, misunderstood, misrepresented, and just plain missed the boat on.

Notice the last four years of decline, where the dollar, floating on the free market, has fallen in value.
(a) Controverting the notion that there are some mysterious uncounted exports to hold it up.
(b) Or that the Chinese and Japanese will be able to effectively thwart force of gravity on the dollar of our trade imbalance by buying up our Treasury paper infinitely. That helps them manage their individual currency trade-levels and pegs, and can hold up the general dollar for a while.

But can...and will...it stop the dollar from sliding as it is currently doing? Are the fundamental weaknesses of the U.S. export sector simply too much and sinking the dollar's trade value [the brief dip of the EU notwithstanding, thanks to French voters]? [ Sound of crickets on Todd's end.]

And then there are the last four years of our society becoming demonstrably, and irrefutably, poorer. In precise contradiction of the assertions of the self-appointed "optimists" who have no idea what is really going on. [With any more optimists lke that, who needs enemies?]

Another rich irony Todd, is that it is in precise agreement with your own proclaimed economic understanding (I previously alluded to your statements supporting these very analytic points before, but you blew it off). I surmise you are simply either too intent on "getting" me, or even more egregiously...simply blowing smoke and trashing the thread so no one learns an important set of facts. Here is what you said in this very thread (reiterating at further length to really grind your nose in it):

"Countries that have problems with trade deficits are those countries that have weak currencies." "Argentina had a problem because they couldn't buy goods with their own currency. So they had to borrow dollars. Then they couldn't pay them back."

"Foreigners who want to invest in America have to use dollars to do so. So when they sell us their goods they use the dollars received for investment. Foreigners pouring investment into America is not a sign of American weakness."

"No one wanted to invest in Argentina, because the economy was weak and their government was untrustworthy."

You presuppose...without proof...that "Foreigners pouring investment into America is not a sign of American weakness."

Prove they are in fact "pouring" in financial investments. Your numbers will have to show effectiveness. Prove the dollar is in fact stronger than ever, and has recovered all its losses of the last four years.

But you can't can you? And neither can Kane. In fact, you guys hoist yourself by your own petards, Todd. That is why those charts are so devastatingly bad for your side. And it makes clear that the case you made against Argentina applies with potentially equal force against the U.S. currency which is in fact now demonstrably weaker than it was not just the last four years ago...but almost fifteen.

Good going phony free traders. Got any more bright ideas? Let's sell some retired MX missiles to the Chinese...and recoup some of the money, eh?

[Travis McGee]

the case you made against Argentina applies with potentially equal force against the U.S. currency

The rose-colored-glasses crowd won't admit there is a problem until we are in the middle of the Greater Depression.

[LowCountryJoe]

The question always was (for about the 12th time Todd, shall we say Mr. Know-it-all), has the U.S., with respect to foreign "investments" pumping up our dollar, reached a tipping point?

Well Paul, do you know the answer? Do you even know what directly determines the exchange rate between currencies? I'll help you here: the market's demand (that includes all buyers, public or private) for a given currency is what ultimately determines its exchange rate with other currencies. Any "tipping point", where foreigners (collectively) stop using their capital to purchase dollar dominated assets; thereby shifting the demand curve, will only result in getting more of what you wish for - a shrinking trade deficit.

Where such actions actually fail to counterbalance the dollar's slide due to an overwhelmingly bad trade picture...

You're really going to have to make up your mind here, Paul. Is this really a bad trade picture? Next, why is a falling dollar a bad thing in your opinion? If you write that a weaker dollar makes commodities much costlier for purchase but you simultaneously do not what any of the foreigners raw materials, then why should you care? Oh, I know, you're afraid that American companies that extract raw material commodities will decide to sell to foreigners instead, since they'll be able to better afford the stuff. I know the solution to this dilemma, Paul, and it's in keeping with your autarky beliefs...we should make law that "allows" American owners of commodities to sell them at an American discount as long as they submit a waving American flag with their purchase orders.

Let me repeat this point another way to try to get past your obfuscations and refusal to legitimately debate: Knowing "investments" are the countervailing force holding up the U.S. dollar (which in fact I presupposed)...you must confront the fact that it appears it has failed to do so the last four years.

Again, it's really the demand that's the determinate. Demand for dollar denominated assets is only one such portion of overall demand.

Now all you Phony free traders, take a seat and learn something.

I have no idea how the most "phoniest" of the free traders have learned something from your post. Other than you seem to use your language skills to get across a lot of nothing. It's reminiscent of John Kerry speak and do you even really know what in the hell you are saying? For instance, when you write "We are dealing with multivariant analysis, and those two listed factors have no controls for the foreign entities investment flows.", do you even know what the word "multivariant" means? Why not talk of "models" and "explanatory variables"? I think I know why, because you don't really understand the stuff you're trying to get acRoss.

[A. Pole]

Let's deconstruct the fairly glaring mistakes replete in Kane's article. It is so richly ironic, that his own charts "does in" his....and your whole spin operation. [...] Methinks Mr. Kane is just a tad too unconcerned to be credible in advocating for "our" side.

Bump

[LowCountryJoe]

You bumped that? Paul Ross has no idea what he's talking about and you're just parroting his ignorance. The Lefties that visit here - the ones that feed the protectionists misconceptions - have got to be getting a huge chuckle out of this thread.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have collectively misrepresented what I said about the chart...which I cited merely because it proves what has happened the last four years. And devastatingly so.

Your own words :My, my, my, you are flummoxed. The chart proves the relation of the issues. Trade Deficit charted over time against US Dollar Value Against Major Currencies. They have been going in adverse directions in precise tandem....and I remember how 4-5 years ago the "phony trade" apologists for the deficit pooh-poohed this... where are they now?

That's the funny thing about a relation, it should work both ways. It should work over more than just the last 4 years. If there was truly a relation.

The question always was (for about the 12th time Todd, shall we say Mr. Know-it-all), has the U.S., with respect to foreign "investments" pumping up our dollar, reached a tipping point?

No, the dollar has not reached a tipping point. This is what a tipping point looks like.

U.S. Dollar vs. Argentine Peso

Let me repeat this point another way to try to get past your obfuscations and refusal to legitimately debate: Knowing "investments" are the countervailing force holding up the U.S. dollar (which in fact I presupposed)...you must confront the fact that it appears it has failed to do so the last four years

No one said that investments must hold up the dollar. Only that investments are more important than trade deficits in determining the value of the dollar. Kane also said "However, the market for dollars includes— and in some ways is dominated by—speculators, who are not focused on real goods and services. Currency traders try to stay just ahead of the expectations of the market but can create self-ful­filling prophecies of exchange rate movements. They have routinely abandoned a currency when there was a widespread loss of confidence in the underlying economy. In short, market sentiment matters, even if sentiment is impossible to know— much less quantify—beforehand."

Kane can't deny the last four years. Hence he tries to confuse the issue. You grasp on to his framing of an issue I am not arguing.

If Kane can't deny the last 4 years then you can't deny the 4 years before that. Keep dancing though. Love the Moby Dick reference. F-Troop too.

Meanwhile, while you grasp at the last 3 months of the EU's French-driven decline, Kane grabs for the 15 year long period chart as follows on the Dollar against the "Euro" (which did not even exist back then)

Everyone knows the Euro did not exist 15 years ago. That's why the chart says "Euro per Dollar Synthetic Exchange Rate" For someone who uses such big words, you continue to have a hard time reading the titles on charts.

So, please educate all us free traders. Tell us when the Euro was created and what its value was on the first day it traded.

Most of the Free Traders who apologized for the "creative destruction" of the U.S. industrial base routinely genuflected in the direction of the appreciating U.S. currency.

I don't know anyone who genuflected in the direction of the appreciating U.S. currency.

Argument (2) is that when the imports accelerate faster than our exports...it is a sign of a "strong" economy.

When do US imports accelerate fastest? Isn't it when we experience fast growth coming out of a recession? When do US imports decline? Isn't it when our economy slows down during a recession? Now who's obfuscating?

And then there are the last four years of our society becoming demonstrably, and irrefutably, poorer.

Demonstrably poorer? Where is your proof?

Prove they are in fact "pouring" in financial investments.

Your words: I see you miss that the rate of Chinese U.S. capital accumulations is accelerating on an exponential curve...more evidence of absolute advantage. In 2003 they had $400 billion in their U.S. slush fund. Now it is over $610 billion...

See, the Chinese have poured $610 billion in investments into the US. You know the Japanese have even more.

Your numbers will have to show effectiveness. Prove the dollar is in fact stronger than ever, and has recovered all its losses of the last four years.

You show your economic ignorance, again. Just because they invest in the dollars, in the US, doesn't mean they are "effective", doesn't mean they guarantee the dollar rises or doesn't fall. It just means that they feel comfortable investing hundreds of billions in the US, or at least uncomfortable with the alternatives.

And it makes clear that the case you made against Argentina applies with potentially equal force against the U.S. currency which is in fact now demonstrably weaker than it was not just the last four years ago...but almost fifteen.

Huh? Show me how weak it is compared to 15 years ago. And please, stop using the big words that you don't understand. Try using English for a change.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are the fundamental weaknesses of the U.S. export sector simply too much and sinking the dollar's trade value [the brief dip of the EU notwithstanding, thanks to French voters]? [ Sound of crickets on Todd's end.]

Every time I read a post of your's I find another thing to laugh at.

Fundamental weakness of the US export sector? You mean the export sector that is the largest export sector in the world? The sector that exported $1.15 trillion of goods and services in 2004? Versus China's $593 billion in exports? So China's exports make them a rampaging powerhouse while our exports (nearly double China's) mean we're fundamentally weak? [sound of idiots on Paul's end]

[mr_hammer]

Ping

[Paul Ross]

I don't know anyone who genuflected in the direction of the appreciating U.S. currency.

Of course you know such people, so we know that response by you is also dishonest. They're in your own F-Troop.

At least you have finally deigned to reply to the actual question posed. You reliably of course take the defensive posture. Your Argentina tipping point illustration is the only thing cognizable as an responsive proof. But it fails to effectively deny the hypothesis. The situation is distinguishable, since we, as the reserve currency of the planet, may be exhibiting a quite different, and more protracted slide. E.g., one key difference here is that the U.S. dollar is being propped up by any number of importing countries buying our treasuries, particularly China and Japan. And, also, we haven't defaulted yet, although public doubts have surfaced in the trade press. The Argentines defaulted, correct? So anyways, despite the non-default on our part, the U.S. dollar has been sliding down and down over the past four years into territory analogous to that of 15 years ago. A titannic loss of wealth for the U.S.

Your further argument went this way:"No one said that investments must hold up the dollar. Only that investments are more important than trade deficits in determining the value of the dollar."

This is at least in part, a lame admission of the underlying, "Adam Smith" axiomatic connections between dollar value and the trade balance. You and Kane try to embellish the countervailing force of investments as "more important". Then you try to add one more factor, which ultimately is mere hand-waving:

"Kane also said "However, the market for dollars includes— and in some ways is dominated by— speculators, who are not focused on real goods and services. Currency traders try to stay just ahead of the expectations of the market but can create self-fulfilling prophecies of exchange rate movements. They have routinely abandoned a currency when there was a widespread loss of confidence in the underlying economy. In short, market sentiment matters, even if sentiment is impossible to know— much less quantify—beforehand."

Such market sentiments have always been there one way or the other... So, have they ever forced a persistent decline over four years? And ascribing this much power to such market elements tends to undercut Kane's devotion to his blindered notion of one-way free markets. So are you and Kane saying that the drop of the last four years was "dominated by" and hence due primarily to the "speculators"? And that the "speculators" have wrongly trashed the U.S. dollar for the last four years? You need to come up with proof for all those propositions. Those speculators are just part of the same "market" you and Kane previously implicitly trusted with fixing real value. Fundamentals should have corrected this persistent a "market distortion" by now. Unless the other fundamentals are also adverse. Which is what I have been suggesting. The trade deficit, and an incapacity of the investments of the importers to counter the damage caused. So maybe the "market sentiment" which is supposedly playing a "dominant factor" here is weighting the trade deficit a lot more heavily than you apologists are. In other words, the "After the Fact" recognition of this factor. That which you deem inconsequential, they don't. If we posit that the speculators are driving the dollar down, your persistent pattern of stone-wall denial of factors the speculators deem significant...such as the trade deficit for one...would, if followed by the Administration, just result in economic policy that merely feeds those same speculators mistrust in the policies. You guys in F-Troop need some kind of "Ten-Step Program" to get out of your addiction.

Now onto the chart, where I was pointing at the last four years for evidence of a tipping point. Not a precisely general relationship, as we don't know what the variable of the countervailing investment activity...or the variable of the precise market response to it... looks like, (albeit Kane unconvincingly claims it is a larger factor than the trade deficit itself). Hence I said, "the chart proves the relation of the issues. Trade deficit charted over time against US Dollar Value Against Major Currencies. They have been going in adverse directions in precise tandem." Over the last four years. My own words from their context. That is indeed an accurately descriptive history of the last four years, is it not? It's Kane's own chart, after all.

You're reply: "That's the funny thing about a relation, it should work both ways. It should work over more than just the last 4 years. If there was truly a relation."

Actually, if there was no proof of tipping, with your contrarian thesis of the "robust" U.S. economy, I seriously question whether the dollar should be sliding for so darn long. I.e., "just" four years is not so short a time. So as the dollar slides, return on foreign investments in those non-pegged currencies would be hurt. General, non-pegged imports get more expensive. Particularly commodities. These are adverse fundamentals for the economy which have to be overcome.

I reminded you that the U.S. was impacted adversely by this decline in the dollar, as it reflected that we were demonstrably poorer. You replied:

"Demonstrably poorer? Where is your proof?"

Kane's own chart. Deflate the GDP by the dollar decline.

Finally let's look at your response about the countervaling investments. I demanded that you show they be effective at keeping the dollar up.You show your economic ignorance, again. Just because they invest in the dollars, in the US, doesn't mean they are "effective", doesn't mean they guarantee the dollar rises or doesn't fall. It just means that they feel comfortable investing hundreds of billions in the US, or at least uncomfortable with the alternatives."

Their "comfort" is not the issue. The effectiveness is. So you can't duck this, their "comfort" is not being supported by the rest of the market.

Then you finish up with your usual insults: Huh? Show me how weak it is compared to 15 years ago. And please, stop using the big words that you don't understand. Try using English for a change.

You mean YOU don't understand. Sorry Charlie. I am not about to make it too easy for any Chinese agents who only speak English as a Second Language.

[LowCountryJoe]

Actually, if there was no proof of tipping, with your contrarian thesis of the "robust" U.S. economy.

Why place the word "robust" in quotes like you did?

Their "comfort" is not the issue. The effectiveness is. So you can't duck this, their "comfort" is not being supported by the rest of the market.

OK, let's talk about the effectiveness of trade because..well because..who really gives a sh*t what the dollar is doing. Let's talk about the long term trend of rising disposable income, high employment, high productivity, and a superior and still improving living standard; all occurring in a post trade agreement period, too.

Oh, and you can include all of the $5 dollar words in your sentences that you wish but if you're including them to mask that fact that you don't really grasp the material on a conceptual level, it just has you come acRoss as cheesy. In other words, drop the act, participate with better clarity, and we might just be able to help liberate your common sense from the deep and sticky tar pits in your irrationally fearful, protectionist brain.

[winodog]

1.15 trillion? What made up the majority of these exports? I am not doubting it, I am just curious.

[Paul Ross]

Fundamental weakness of the US export sector? You mean the export sector that is the largest export sector in the world? The sector that exported $1.15 trillion of goods and services in 2004? Versus China's $593 billion in exports? So China's exports make them a rampaging powerhouse while our exports (nearly double China's) mean we're fundamentally weak?

You continue to manifest ignorance about what China actually is, as well as your usual knee-jerk trade misrepresentations. How much of the U.S. export is one-way, one time tansfers of technology and know-how? And how much is "round-robin" exports of parts to be assembled and merged with foreign components abroad to be reimported? And of our "exports" how much do they now also depend on imported parts?

We can't know that our export sector is really doing well at all so long as these substitutionary practices are comparatively unmeasured, although anecdotal evidence indicates they are now huge factors, and the slide of the dollar, (only now temporarily arrested by the EU snafu), is highly suggestive.

The overall measures published show that U.S. imports are exceeding our exports by $620 billion. The approximately two-to-one gap is often waved away as inconsequential by apologists for the inordinate importation.

But the disparate impact of the new and increased Chinese imports to our market are particularly damaging because of their being increasingly upgraded, and the retargetting from the low-end upwards to our own remaining exportable industrial products cxategories, and also because of their ability as a communist country to play our own free markets and citizens into supportive tools for abetting their own select agenda.

[Toddsterpatriot]

At least you have finally deigned to reply to the actual question posed. You reliably of course take the defensive posture. Your Argentina tipping point illustration is the only thing cognizable as an responsive proof. But it fails to effectively deny the hypothesis. The situation is distinguishable, since we, as the reserve currency of the planet, may be exhibiting a quite different, and more protracted slide.

Or no protracted slide at all.

E.g., one key difference here is that the U.S. dollar is being propped up by any number of importing countries buying our treasuries, particularly China and Japan. And, also, we haven't defaulted yet, although public doubts have surfaced in the trade press.

You fear the US will default? How so? Economic growth is very strong, 3%+. You're imagining things again.

The Argentines defaulted, correct?

Yes, they defaulted on their debt. The debt that was denominated in other currencies. Our debt is in dollars. I ask again, you expect the US to default on dollar debt? Put down the crack pipe.

So anyways, despite the non-default on our part, the U.S. dollar has been sliding down and down over the past four years into territory analogous to that of 15 years ago. A titannic loss of wealth for the U.S.

Finally, you touch reality. The "horrendous" slide of the dollar puts us where we were in 1990? I thought this drop was historic, unprecedented, earth-shattering? And all it did was put us back to 1990? I guess that's a bad thing because.....that's right, it's not.

"Adam Smith" axiomatic connections between dollar value and the trade balance.

Big words, but like so many of your words, they're pulled right out of your ass. The same axiomatic connections between dollar value and the trade balance exist between dollar value and the capital account. So much for your big words!!

Such market sentiments have always been there one way or the other... So, have they ever forced a persistent decline over four years?

Yes. Just as they forced a persistent rise over the prior four years.

So are you and Kane saying that the drop of the last four years was "dominated by" and hence due primarily to the "speculators"?

No.

And that the "speculators" have wrongly trashed the U.S. dollar for the last four years?

Speculators can over react. Have they? No one knows. That's the funny thing about currency markets.

You need to come up with proof for all those propositions. Those speculators are just part of the same "market" you and Kane previously implicitly trusted with fixing real value.

When did Kane or I implicitly trust anyone with fixing real value? And they aren't part of the "market" they're part of the market. No need for scare quotes. Everyone is part of the market. Even people who don't understand it, like you.

Fundamentals should have corrected this persistent a "market distortion" by now.

You mean by dropping the Euro to a nine month low?

The trade deficit, and an incapacity of the investments of the importers to counter the damage caused.

Damage? It's called a market fluctuation, not damage. Some people win, exporters and holders of foreign currency, foreign debt and foreign equities. Some people lose, importers and those who are short foreign currency, foreign debt and foreign equities.

Now onto the chart, where I was pointing at the last four years for evidence of a tipping point.

I showed you what a real tipping point looked like.

Not a precisely general relationship, as we don't know what the variable of the countervailing investment activity...or the variable of the precise market response to it... looks like, (albeit Kane unconvincingly claims it is a larger factor than the trade deficit itself). Hence I said, "the chart proves the relation of the issues.

Wrong, a four year chart would have showed what happened over the last four years. An eight year chart shows the dollar gaining strength as the deficit increased and then weakening as the deficit increased more.

And when you use these big words (you have an egg head random word generator or what) you just sound silly because you don't understand what you're talking about.

Actually, if there was no proof of tipping, with your contrarian thesis of the "robust" U.S. economy, I seriously question whether the dollar should be sliding for so darn long.

It's not my thesis that the economy is robust. It's a fact. Look at GDP, unemployment or any number of other measurements and you can see that the economy is robust.

Kane's own chart. Deflate the GDP by the dollar decline.

There you go, nice simple words. Easier for everyone to see your error and you don't sound like such an egghead. Why in the hell would anyone think that deflating GDP by the decline in the dollar would give you a number that means anything? GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product. In my world our domestic currency is still dollars.

You mean YOU don't understand. Sorry Charlie. I am not about to make it too easy for any Chinese agents who only speak English as a Second Language.

Yeah, okay. You're like Wiley Coyote. You ordered a nice bomb (chart) from Acme (Heritage Foundation) and when you opened it, it blew up in your face, again.

[1rudeboy]

Click here for a decent overview. Scroll down to "Annex I: U.S. Trade in 2004" and click again (.pdf file).

[Toddsterpatriot]

You continue to manifest ignorance about what China actually is, as well as your usual knee-jerk trade misrepresentations.

It sounds like China is the place for cheap labor.

And how much is "round-robin" exports of parts to be assembled and merged with foreign components abroad to be reimported?

Thanks for the link!!!

According to Commerce Department numbers, much of what the United States exports to China are machines and machine parts, especially computer components and integrated circuits. Chinese companies assemble the parts into computers, televisions, telephones, toys and other office machines and consumer electronics and ship those back to the United States as well as to third countries.

Thanks for making my point for me. We export high value added goods like integrated circuits and some low skilled low paid Chinese worker clicks the pieces together and turns then into toys and phones. Yeah, we really need to get those jobs back. Never mind the high tech parts we're making here. LOL!

The overall measures published show that U.S. imports are exceeding our exports by $620 billion. The approximately two-to-one gap is often waved away as inconsequential by apologists for the inordinate importation.

Wow, inordinate importation!! You mean we're buying lotsa stuff? Egghead!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks rude, I was busy slapping Paul around, again.

[1rudeboy]

You have the patience of a saint. I'm weary of the "if the market is working, that means it's not working" argument.

[Paul Ross]

...who really gives a sh*t what the dollar is doing.

You did. Your "rising disposable income" is measured against the U.S. dollar. The U.S. GDP measured by a comparative currency as a deflator doesn't look so hot, now, does it? Hence you're sudden interest in not giving a "sh*t".

Hence the only ones irrational are you guys, who show a rather pronounced case of cognitive dissonance, and who blow off the slide of the dollar as so measured.

As for protectionism, first go lecture the Chinese and see how far you get. And then read some U.S. history, such as Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan's.

As for your own poor language, and poor ability to conceptualize economics, and strategic warfare... suit yourself. To each his own.

[Paul Ross]

I think he misspoke. According to the USTR the U.S. exports in 2004 were only $804.2 billion. Our imports, meanwhile, were $1,468.3 billions.

As abstracted from the following summary table in Annex I:

U.S. exports of goods and services (including investment earnings) in 2004 are 22-fold greater than 1970 and 75 percent greater than 1994.
U.S. imports of goods and services (2004 $1,468.3 billions U.S. Imports) are 34-fold greater than 1970 and 117 percent greater than 1994.
With the value of U.S. exports (2004 $804.2 billions) increasing less than that of imports, the total deficit on goods and services trade (excluding earnings and payments on foreign investment) increased by approximately $119 billion from $497 billion in 2003 (4.5 percent of GDP) to $616 billion in 2004 (5.5 percent of GDP). The U.S. deficit in goods trade alone increased by $98 billion from $548 billion in 2003 (5.0 percent of GDP) to $664 billion in 2004 (5.9 percent of GDP). The services trade surplus declined by $3 billion from $51 billion in 2003 (0.5 percent of GDP) to $48 billion in 2004