[Paul Ross]

They need to go crack a macro-economics book written in this century.

Written by apologists for the deficit since 2000?

[markedman]

Amen!

I saw an earlier reference to Milton Friedman whose books I generally find interesting until I get about halfway through, which is where he begins to depart from reality like most of the Adam-Smith-tie-wearers posting today.

Say hello to San Angelo, Monahans and Borger for me.

[MeanWestTexan]

1999 would work, too. Or 1975. Just not 1650.

A trade deficit, by itself, means nothing.

It's like an elevated heartbeat. Could be bad. Or you could be jogging.

I believe this miscopetion is a caused by failure to require calculus to graduate high school.

It's based on static, zero-sum, thinking. Essentially, they assume there is a finite of wealth to go around.

This was last true in mercantile Holland when countries hoarded gold.

I believe the concept eludes the same type of people who can't get their mind around the (similiar) concept that lowering taxes increases can increase tax revenue by increasing the size of the pie, albeit it is a disease of non-mathematical minds on the right, as opposed to the limited minds of the left.

To grossly oversimplify (and make static for explaination), if the US economy imports 250 to expand its economy from 500 to 1000, it's up a net 250.

We import to expand more, in other words.

The floating dollar is the natural fix to this --- if we over-import the dollar devalues, so we export more and import less.

Pat is, well, limited, in his mental capacity apparently, or simply does not want to understand.