Whikle your reply appeared a rebuttal, a closer look only reveals that each of your points merely support what you tried to deny- except for this one:
"More economic ignorance. The international trade of the U.S. is always in balance. Popular consumer reports in the news always speak of one-half of the trade equation - exports and imports of goods and services. What is not presented often enough is the "capital" accounts. The US "trade" deficit exists only because the US has a capital surplus. More companies from all over the world put so much brand new capital into the US that it far exceeds our capital outflow. The US "capital" accounts completely offset the export/import account. We can buy so many imports because we have so much foreign capital that comes here to invest in the United States private economy. Others export their capital to us, investing it here, and we turn around and buy their exports. There is no actual imbalance when the whole financial picture is understood."
That's TOO funny, pal. What country owns the title on YOUR soul? Such a scenario would quickly have the entire country under foreign ownership- not entirely untrue, but to say it has countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability which Clinton nailed the coffin shut with his Chinagate and NAFTA policies is just silly.
What you are saying is that we are countering the consumer driven trade deficit by selling shares of America to the world- again I will concurr there is a truth to that- but you would promote that is a sustainable economic model?
"Fantasies of the left. There never was such an agreement and the US economy would actually improve if demand on the Euro was greatly increased"
I'll ask you this: Are you denying that after Desert Storm the Saudis discounted exports to the US by one dollar barrel to continue this protection you deny?
Furthermore your assertion about the Euro is silly, it would demand that the entire world economy was only comprised of the Dollar and the Euro, and that the EU needed something from us they could not get elsewhere.
The world is chomping at the bit to divest the US dollar, wake up and smell the disrespect and lack of gratitude for us saving the free world.
"That's TOO funny, pal. What country owns the title on YOUR soul? Such a scenario would quickly have the entire country under foreign ownership- not entirely untrue, but to say it has countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability which Clinton nailed the coffin shut with his Chinagate and NAFTA policies is just silly."
No my dear troll. it only shows your ignorance of international economics. Nearly every Secretary of the Treasury since Carter's has tried to explain the relationship of the capital account (US capital sent to invest overseas, foreign capital invested in the US)to the "current account" (import/export trade in good and services), usually, most people, like you, are not listening when they do.
The real "trade" balance sheet has two accounts: the current account (that's the one the media likes to talk about because of it's "deficit", consisting of imports and exports of goods and services exchanges, and the capital account, consisting of investments (direct capital flow unrelated to import/export). As such, the real "trade" balance sheet is always balanced. We have a large trade "deficit" because we can afford it, because we have a surplus on the capital side.
"Such a scenario would quickly have the entire country under foreign ownership- not entirely untrue, but to say it has countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability which Clinton nailed the coffin shut with his Chinagate and NAFTA policies is just silly."
First, it is you that say something has "countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability", not I, because the issues - international finance and how it works, and "manufacturing" as a slice of our economy are somewhat apples and oranges - related, in some ways but unrelated to the general understanding of a "trade deficit" and what it actually means, in terms of finance.
Second: "Chinagate", via Clinton had nothing to do with trade in general, but was related to a particular hi-tech trade that Clinton allowed. The trade issue of permanent "most favored nation" trade status for China trade to the US was not granted until September of 2000. The bill could hardley be called either a Clinton or Dimorat Victory. The bill, H.R. 4444 passed the House with 142 Republicans and 68 Dimorats in favor, and passed the Senate with 40 Republicans, 30 Dimorats in favor. And NAFTA, which was believed would move a lot of US manufacturing to Mexico in fact did not. It did not get major movement of US manufacturers because Mexico proved to be not a great attraction to the foreign investment needed to expand its manufacturing sector (corruption, too much socialist regulation and the power of its crony-capitalist oligarchs).
"I'll ask you this: Are you denying that after Desert Storm the Saudis discounted exports to the US by one dollar barrel to continue this protection you deny?"
Name your source and quote it.
"Furthermore your assertion about the Euro is silly.."
Silly to the ignorant, but not to economists.
Just as a higher value of the dollar hurts our exports, so too a higher value for the Euro hurts its exports. Even when just considering that EU exports count for 36% of the EU GDP (vs 11-13% for the US) and the US alone takes 1/4 of EU exports. Then, considering that most major upward movements of the EU vis-a-vis the dollar have moved the Euro higher against currencies other major trading partners as well. A "higher" value currency is a blessing and a curse. You can buy more from outside the "country" and you sell less to those to whom your currency value has risen.
The world economy is growing. Most major economies and dozens of minor ones have finally matured or started to. While they were all once minor economic players, compared to the US in 1945, they are now much greater contributors. The major change is reflected not so much as a lessening US economy (continues, 20+ years growing better that Europe) but that so many other economies are now also doing very well. It is only natural that the values today would reflect more of an approaching world-parity among major economies than the big divergence of the past.
As far as your myth about "The world is chomping at the bit to divest the US dollar", it would seem the only thing they are chomping at the bit at is to continue to find good export and investment opportunities here, because more capital flows into the U.S. than any other single economy in the world; in spite of the media-painted portrait of things.