Posted on 01/10/2010 7:22:50 AM PST by 1rudeboy
“Amen. What is called ‘free trade’ is government to government lobbyist agreements.
Trade is we buy product from you and you buy product from us. It is not we buy product from you and trade you jobs, factories and Treasuries in return. That’s the loony deals that have caused economic misery.”
Bears repeating!!
It is knee jerk bigotry. They still worship at the polished black shoes of Pat Buchanan
The term “Free Trade” is rather misleading.
Lol, just to be clear, it is your contention that there is no relationship between US budget deficits and national debt, and the US trade deficits???
“The term “Free Trade” is rather misleading.”
One among many...the worst is ‘reform’...run like hell when you hear that one.
Free trade: you tax my products 0%, and I'll tax your products 0%.
And, actually, I made no mention of free trade agreements with European nations. I said we have something approaching actual free trade, due to long historical relationships that evolved into pretty open trade.
It's when the US enters all these "free trade" agreements that we end up with enormous trade deficits. NAFTA took us from a $1 billion surplus with Mexico to a $40 - $50 trade deficit.
You: That's what is called "free trade," silly.
No, silly, demanding equal access is NOT free trade. HAVING equal access is free trade. We seldom get beyond the demanding stage with all too many nations.
Free trade simply does not exist between the US and most nations. We've agreed on that. And the US is giving away far too much while waiting for others to open their markets, and the wait is decades old in all too many cases.
The Asian model for growth lives, and thrives, and is making inroads into South American and other areas.
LOL! Just to be clear, you claimed there was a relationship. A close relationship. What does my contention have to do with your claim?
All true, and that cute little, ancient word "trade" is now used to encompass all sorts of practices that have little to do with "trade": transfer of manufacturing facilities, job exports, capital exports, technology transfer, and buying next to nothing that is an authentic product created by the people of the nation we are "trading" with.
Actually, our so-called "trade" policy is by far our biggest foreign aide program. All sorts of motives are behind which is euphemistically called "trade" policy.
It would be interesting to see how india, brazil, russia, mexico, Skorea, and italy look on that graph.
Looks to me like The world is a changin real fast. I’m guessing the world is about to be steamrollered by china and india.
Lol, because if you can't even discern an opinion about two aspects of our economy that are so large, and the subject of so much discussion, there's no reason to think you'd be able to understand any discussion of the relationship:
Again: Do you contend there is no relationship between our budget deficits and national debt, and our ever growing trade deficits?
That's a simple question. Someone with your great interest in these matters should already have put your thoughts to this question and derived an answer.
And, another simple question: Do you believe if we produced more energy from domestic sources, and reduced imports, that it would improve our economy? Lots of conservatives seem to think so. What about you?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Again: Do you contend there is no relationship between our budget deficits and national debt, and our ever growing trade deficits?
There is no relationship between the budget deficit and the trade deficit.
Please ping me when you post your formula proving me wrong.
Do you believe if we produced more energy from domestic sources, and reduced imports, that it would improve our economy?
Producing more energy here would improve our economy, whether it reduced imports or not.
Lol, so, how would it improve the economy?
More jobs? That means more income and more income taxes.
More oil company profits? That means more corporate income taxes.
So, more jobs, and more tax revenue for the feds, and therefore, a reduction in the federal deficit (no matter how large or small the deficit is, a marginal increase in revenue decreases the deficit).
And, any significant increase in domestic crude production, particularly in the continental US, will reduce imports, whether or not domestic demand increased significantly. Still, we'd need lesser imports, and the greater world crude production would lower the price, whatever the supply and demand situation might be, and that lowers cost for business, and increases profits for business. And that domestic production would reduce the trade deficit by that incremental amount, and also reduce the budget deficit as long as oil producers were paying taxes.
And, your demand for a formula is as silly as are most all your posts concerning economics. From now on, you provide formulas to prove every assertion you make.
And discern means to recognize or detect or comprehend: that the budget deficit and national debt, and the trade deficits, are related. - But anyone with any knowledge of economics already knows that. But many do have political reasons for denying it.
Time for other things this afternoon.
Lol, so, how would it improve the economy?
You really need me to explain how an increase in Gross Domestic Product improves the economy? LOL!
So, more jobs, and more tax revenue for the feds, and therefore, a reduction in the federal deficit
Because spending remains the same when revenues increase? LOL!
And, your demand for a formula is as silly
I only demand a formula when someone makes a silly claim that can be refuted in 10 seconds.
And discern means to recognize or detect or comprehend
Like when I detected your claim was an opinion, not based in fact?
Here's a question for you, did the budget deficit increase from 2008 to 2009? Here's another one, did the trade deficit increase from 2008 to 2009?
Let me know if you ever figure those out.
Time for other things this afternoon.
Writing more jokes?
So many deficits. We got the budget deficit plus all those trade defiicits --must at least seven of those buggers-- In the mean time we got one hell of nice capital surplus.
OK, this is a bit past my bed time but I just had to take issue with the budg/trade deficit mix-up. Hey Will, any chance you might want to say what you know about the trade deficit. Like, are you talking about exports-imports or something?
Can you really be as hopelessly ignorant as you seem?
Increased domestic energy production creates all sorts of economic activity: jobs, crude oil sales, royalties to mineral rights owners, profits, and taxes and revenue too government at all levels. Increased tax revenues decrease the budget deficits.
And increased domestic crude oil production decreases imports when that production is used rather than imports. And, if that increased production is exported, the amount exported will be netted against imports, thereby decreasing crude oil imports and deceasing the trade deficit. And that goes for many other products that might be produced domestically or imported. But, since crude oil is often almost half our trade deficit, it’s the best example around.
So, once again, trade deficits and budget deficits are very often related, whether you can understand it or not.
If you knew what the trade deficit was, you certainly wouldn't be asking that question. The trade deficit exists because our imports are perpetually greater than our exports, at least for the past several decades.
Because I don't believe your claim? LOL!
Increased domestic energy production creates all sorts of economic activity
Increased domestic oil production is a great idea. It will grow our economy and increase government tax revenue. If you want to claim that, I don't think anyone will disagree.
So, once again, trade deficits and budget deficits are very often related
Very often related? Changing your claim already?
If you are correct, you should be able to show that when budget deficits rise, trade deficits rise. Or is that causation backwards? Maybe when trade deficits rise, budget deficits rise?
whether you can understand it or not.
Just waiting for you to prove it.
I don't have to prove it. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economic activity and trade already knows it. And, as usual, you are going off on tangents and trying to create confusion and generally making your self look foolish.
If you can't look at the crude oil example and understand how more domestic crude production can reduce our budget deficit and also reduce our trade deficit, then you are truly hopeless.
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.