Well gaslinger as one who has argued against sane trade policy from a metaphysical standpoint you are hardly one to assault another's question. Eci=onometrics does provide an answer to the question nad if you are going to argue the point as irrelevant you should at least state the irrelevant portion of the econometric answer. No I do not have time to look it up for you. but your posting of a supposed mathematical way of answering the question which was not the standard economic definition of the answer opens you upto this fair criticism. Furtehr your use of mathemetics which you had also dosmissed in a post to me makes me question the consoistency of your positions. If you do not believe that mathematics can be used in economics why did you post a false mathematical supposition for determining a healthy strong "industrial"[sic] sector of the economy.
If you are just a shill for the crrent wealth trandfer scheme of the present trade structure then I would suggest that your defense of that would call into question what agenda you really have. You have called others communists for daring to suggest tariffs as a solution to America's structural problems. You have rejected quantitative analysis. Yet you seem to have no problems engaing in name calling. You have not even addressed the wealth transfer agenda of our current trade policy.
Might one draw conclusions from that? Clearly one would be able to at least infer that yuou either did not have knowledge of what the goals of our current trade envirornment is by the use of teh perjorative communist in other places or if you knew then a clearly more sinister motivation comes to mind. No flame just logical analysis.
No, I call them communist for wanting the government to take care of them.
You're funnier when you're flustered.
To demonstrate the pointlessness of his question. He said it needs to be strong, I asked what that meant, he could't provide a definition.