Posted on 04/29/2008 4:06:51 PM PDT by kellynla
“Any time there is a gross imbalance in trade, such as in oil, or any foreign supplied good or service, eventually, as the supply of ‘dollars’ increases, it negatively effects the value of that dollar.
Now, obviously, if you are talking about the trade imbalance between Sri Lanka and the US in shirts. That, being such a small part of the overall market, has a correspondingly small effect. But when you get into the 10’s and hundreds of billions of dollars, then effect is not only measurable, but also painful.
The solution, as I see it is to make the US better at providing its own resources, and making the business climate more favorable then exists in other countries. (can any one say “Fair Tax”?? Yep, I knew you could)”
It needed to be said again.
The question I asked earlier, I was thinking of trade with China. That trade is certainly more significant than Sri Lanka, which is why I was asking.
Of course, you are absolutely correct that we should be using our own resources when it comes to items, like oil, that have a significant impact on our economy.
I am not against all trade by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I always against trade that costs us. I think your idea of trade that is significant has to be looked at again, and when needed, change the way we do trading. I think oil and trade with China both fall into this category.
None of the three stooges (McCain, Clinton, Obama) has any intention of cutting, stopping or remotely slowing federal spending.
If the Congress passed a budget that was, penny for penny, the exact amount as two years ago, the stock market would go through the roof and the economy would take off like a rocket!
So of course that will never happen.
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.