Free Republic

Now, if we could just get SS 'borrowing' and the Iraq war included on the budget, that figure might mean something.

Our border policy has proven idiotic in Iraq as well. How long will the logical disconnect continue?

You guys have it all wrong here, this is simply China attempting to 'invest' in America. Plus, we get useless paper in return for an oil company.

See how hard it is to think like a free trader?

Bush's fault.

Literally.

Bush's fault.

We finally agree on something.

I saw it on the way home from work. Best of the new 3, but Lucas is no romantic. That hardly matters because the biggest thing I can't get past is the digital animation. I just prefer the models and puppets. Just like the first Matrix compared to the second and 3rd. Digital is best used for cleaning up real shots and adding special effects. I really like the remastered episodes 4-6. If you are going to do CG, do it all CG like Final Fantasy. You'll never be blown away like you are by the first one being so new and out there. You have to see for closure. I plan on seeing it another time or two in the next couple weeks, and of course I will buy the 6 disk set to keep for all eternity. Well done George, it was a great ride. Random thoughts, but that's how it hit me.

.6 monthly inflation is 7.2% annualized. How is this good news?

Between 1979 and 2001 the real income of the top one percent of households ($700,000) increased 139 percent, while the income of the middle quintile ($43,700) increased just 17 percent and the poorest fifth rose by only nine percent.

I'll play devil's advocate here and say that household income used to comprise one salary where as nowadays it is more like two. I'd be curious to see the numbers for individuals.

Someone ping Art Bell, that looks like one of them UFO's.

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that to catch me in some sort of logical contradiction. It's certainly possible, but you're really going to have to try a lot harder.

Are we comparing stock prices and skirt lengths again? WRT the title of this thread I've said this way too many times, but I'll say it again - Fair traders used to openly use the N word, now they just talk about hiring Americans. (adapted phrase from race baiter Donna Shalayla)

Asians are smart enough to avoid this old boys club and start their own businesses.

Well, I thought we were getting out of agriculture and buggy whip industries so that we could export high tech goods to the world. Did you hear that we just recently became net importers of food? Do you have any idea what you guys are setting us up for? I was worried about manufacturing, and now we are becoming dependent on the rest of the world for food! It seems like you guys are going to get your way until we've driven over the cliff and it is obvious to even the casual observer.

High wages is garlic for you. When you are in flag waving mode, you'll post something like what you did which really only shows stagnant wages recently in what you guys are calling a boom. On another thread you will be telling us that everyone but doctors and lawyers make too much money, so they should get hack and slashed by offshoring and legal/illegal immigration. And of course we shouldn't forget how you guys line up behind Greenspan warning that high wages are inflationary. Seriously, talk out of one side of your mouth at a time, please.

I just ventured a guess for you. Actually, I made cynical statement. You know how you guys are always saying that the trade deficit will improve/disapper even though it doesn't matter when the dollar goes down. The we accuse you of having a soft dollar policy. I guess you missed that.

So, what were they holding out for?

Ponder this - we know that a month or so back, economists were saying the record imbalance was due to surging oil prices. Oil stayed expensive long enough that demand actually dropped recently. So, could this improvement simply be the flip side to that?

This is utterly fucking futile!!! Don't you understand that other countries in the aggregate simply do not consume as much as we - and our high living standards - do.

Everyone knows that. The question is why are we borrowing money to have people supply our demands rather than doing it ourselves like we used to?

The accounts DO balance. Whatever they're not buying in goods and services (simply because it wouldn't presumably benefit them to by them) above what we're purchasing from them, goes to the purchase of our assets.

You are selling off your assets to buy goods you no longer produce. That sounds more like someone trying to shore up their finances after losing their source of income.

It just so happens that they prefer our debt...and this in turn drives down our domestic interest rates which fuels expansion on consumption.

Let's be honest, you just made that up.

If the shoe was on the other foot, there would be benefits there, too. The bottom line is that in the aggregate, we're trading with one another because we're all benefiting somehow (in the aggregate). There's no coercion, it's all voluntary (at least on our end).

No one said anything about coercion, except you just now. It's pretty clear how our trade partners are benefitting, but how are we? Really, if this is such a great idea, you shouldn't be getting so flustered trying to show that.

What is there such a fucking problem understanding this concept?

Why are surplus and deficit the only choices. If I threw in a 3rd choice - balanced trade - would you still choose deficits? ~ sixmil

Still no answer. Classic political move - make your position centrist then the opposition is extremist.

So, let's recap: 1) You cannot make other countries buy your goods and services; especially if they have no use for them or there utility functions are not being satisfied by what they'd be spending.

Never said you could. But note that it is your side that is talking about forcing China to unpeg its currency.

2) Trade balance (or in-balances) are a misnomer. Trade is always balanced when the relevant account are weighed on the double entry accounting style balance sheet.

Like I said, trade deficits only matter when they are improving, otherwise they are meaningless, ie I win.

3) Are you interested in the book or not?

No, I have read the adult version of Ricardo. I did score in the top .5% on the GRE, if that means anything. Maybe standardized testing is another issue you have a winner take all position on.

They are finally buying food? Wow, what an advanced economy we have.

I asked for evidence that "other countries are finally buying." You seem to suggest they were holding out for something, perhaps a cheaper dollar?

If I were advocating trade surpluses then I would have no problem being called a protectionist. Can you appreciate the difference between someone who advocates surpluses and someone like me who would like to see no deficits or surpluses? I'm not anti-trade, I just think we should be self-sufficient to some degree.

I sail out of the port of LA every weekend and I see very little going out besides scrap steel. It's hard to imagine this is the trade activity of an advanced nation.

Why are surplus and deficit the only choices. If I threw in a 3rd choice - balanced trade - would you still choose deficits?

I think I am informed on the benefits of trade. The benefits of trade deficits however, still elude me. Does this Ricardo -does-Broadway book explain the benefits of large and growing trade deficits? If memory serves, I don't think any of the classic free traders embraced or even imagined the scenario people on your side call free trade.