First, I don't believe you ever posted your table to me. Possibly could you be thinking of someone else that got your goat? That could be a very long list.
Second, I have now checked into it and am not persuaded your prior assertions have approached in any way an accurate summary thereof. Note the immense gaps and skips and jumps. Your cherry-picking your data. And since none of these numbers are controlled for any other variables...such as war, peace, domestic inflation, recession, etc...they don't...and can't... give you a story that is useful for projecting macroeconomic trade policy.
There is no control...or comparison...in these numbers for the other variables.
This means most likely that you are confusing causes and effects.
For example in 1988 the U.S. manufacturing jumped but this was attributable not to the Current Account or the trade balance...but to defense sector spending...and their spin-offs. The personal computer industry taking off.
And you are the one running away from the data. The data supplied by your own source...Manckiwics. He explicitly showed that the ever-worsening situation of NX, net exports, was tracked by a decline in the U.S. capital savings rate. Etc. as previously noted, but ignored by you. You are cornered. You can't escape now.
And your umbrage with the moderator is simply weird. If you stayed civil and didn't tick off people with coarse profanity, you likely would not get zotted.
I think you are right about that; it must be a first for you. Anyhow, I guess I'll ping a select few then that have 'gotten my goat' recently and some who haven't. Some that I believe support trade and who may have had their own goat's gotten by anti-capitalist masquerading as conservatives and then others, like yourself, who really do think that people who engage in trade do so at their own peril - because you very wise people know that trading with someone else, voluntarily, has got to make one worse off than before.
There is no control...or comparison...in these numbers for the other variables.
This means most likely that you are confusing causes and effects.
Post # 15, check it out! Maybe you'll have some other explanation as to why this is the case. There may be a cause and effect issue but you'll be hard pressed at this point to tell me that trade 'deficits' hurt the annual GDP.
Second, I have now checked into it and am not persuaded your prior assertions have approached in any way an accurate summary thereof. Note the immense gaps and skips and jumps. Your cherry-picking your data.
What?! Every year is in there from 1980-2003. The data just happened to be arranged from greatest to least in absolute values in the second column. Nice try, though!
**For those just joining, Paul Ross is disputing the data table found posted in #539 and explained in detail by using the link given in #536**
You are cornered. You can't escape now.
I am? The why did you just whip it out and then step on it...as usual? There's no reason for me to escape while I'm still clubbing you over the head with facts. And while were on this little side tangent, why haven't you answered the true/false questions?
And your umbrage with the moderator is simply weird. If you stayed civil and didn't tick off people with coarse profanity, you likely would not get zotted.
Well, if you weren't such a candy...uh, never mind. I want this post to stay up so that I can reference whenever I feel the need to use it against you and display your ignorance to others. By the way, I believe that you are the only person, in my 2+ years here, to have ever reported me to the moderator. Pretty Cheddar of you.
To: LowCountryJoe Your GDP charts totally fail to include declining U.S. household income. The 70+% of the dislocateds still unemployed or earning substantially less than they were before the destructive outsourcing/importing. I.e., if GDP is going up (questionable when the dollar is not being adjusted to a more stable measure of value, such as Gold), it is not being broadly experienced. The housing bubble which you so drearily brag upon...actually proves we are in an inflationary spiral, soon to burst, as all these bubbles do. A lot of the houses in the $230-250 thousand range in Minnesota today are not intrinsically worth what we paid less than $100,000 for only a decade ago. A lot of home-builders here will confirm that. This bubble was financed...and perpetuated by the low US interest-rates, aided and abetted by a cheap-money policy to try and keep the economy appearing to be buoyant...as it trades away its seed corn. You sophists keep worrying about the tariffs causing the depression. Milton Friedman made his name arguing this. But he has recently come to rethink his thesis: Actually, it was the bubble of the 20's that caused it. Too many businesses too far out on a limb. Global protectionism, not so much US protectionism, hindered US recovery.I take back what I had written about you earlier; about being right about something for once. Still waiting for that first time, Mr. Ross...you're are a phony of the highest order.136 posted on 01/19/2005 11:41:13 AM EST by Paul Ross (Life is NOT like a box of chocolates...) | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]