Posted on 10/05/2009 4:25:24 AM PDT by expat_panama
Should we help him out or let him flop around some more?
Actually, he led me to an epiphany: after all these years of complaining that I must mention the current goods trade deficit when speaking of the services trade surplus, I now understand he did it because he is too stupid to track it himself.
50 years ago families were on average larger and it only took one working adult to support them.
Now families are smaller 1-2 kids and two adults working full-time or more to support them and most families are under a heavy debt crunch.
I was wrong in a minor way and gave the wikipedia citation. Which shows we have had near continual annual trade deficits since late 1960s..... Which is a worse situation that what I said which was continuous trade deficits since 1982
We hear that a lot on these threads, but there are actual historical records available on the number of income earners per family. It's a question of historical record versus political conviction.
Only a moron favors trade deficits. Do you live a life of profligacy and debt?
Same as Arnold Schwarzenegger is worth 200 million or so. Do you think he would be worth that much if he treated his own finances the way he dealt with California’s?
The strong nations right now have a lot less debt than us. Check out Canada and Australia. Their currencies are soaring. Gold has not yet reached an all time high in Australian dollars. They run trade surpluses plus they didn’t have a den of thieves known as Wall Street with its derivitives machines
While you're throwing insults around, I have to ask: Do you know the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit?
You do understand that a trade deficit has nothing at all to do with debt, right?
(It's unfortunate that the word "deficit" is used in this way, for just this reason.)
Dennis is a bit clueless when it come to economics.
I am clueless on many subjects. I credit Free Republic and a countless number of usually patient FReepers with a sorely needed education on some of them.
I hope to give back a bit and help others learn.
He doesn’t understand the difference. I’ve been going-on about it with him for years. California does not have a budget deficit (or surplus) because it buys too much stuff from China, no more than Arnold does himself. A lot of people simply don’t get it (and I blame their political “idols” for not explaining the difference, and rather confusing the two—budget and trade deficits—in order to get a donation here and there).
Maybe the problem isn't lack of economics at all. There's a lot of folks on these threads with plenty of info but it just gets buried under a pile of 'dumbass' and 'moron' stuff.
Seems it's what Investor's Business Daily referred to as toxic personalities that we need to avoid to keep from getting our energy all sapped. An opposing point of view can be great to work with when it's from someone who's happy about life.
Do you know the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit?
Are you for real?
You do understand that a trade deficit has nothing at all to do with debt, right?
Then how come we are in hock to the Chinese?
Trade deficit as defined by those 4 charts I posted
Warren Buffett on trade deficits
The successful American businessman and investor Warren Buffett was quoted in the Associated Press (January 20, 2006) as saying "The U.S trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to political turmoil... Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them."
Perhaps because of the US Treasuries they have bought?
Look, obstinance and anger neither equal nor overcome facts.
The term "trade deficit" is a quick and dirty way of saying "imports exceed exports". For example, Hawaii has a massive trade deficit, because it must import nearly everything. That does NOT mean that Hawaii is deeply in debt.
Hawaii could go on a "Hawaii first!" campaign and require all its citizens to "buy Hawaiian" and reject any imports. This would result in either 1) severe shortages, or 2) severe price increases, or probably BOTH. Forcing the state to avoid "trade deficits" would be nearly crippling.
Hawaiians could scream and moan about how its petroleum production has been outsourced to Texas and Alaska, just to satisfy greedy oil companies. Or they could stage protests over how the Hawaiian sandstone market is being brutally undercut by cheap imports from New Mexico.
OK, I'm digressing in a big way here. But these topics are all interrelated.
Now, the minute you find it convenient, you combine the two to mitigate the fact that you were wrong. Hypocrite.
Those 3 things are different? Don't tell dennisw, he's been conflating them for years.
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.