GDP Hits 4.1 %! In Second Quarter

[lustylad]

Ok, I am going to toss a grenade into this debate... remember Milton Friedman? Conservative icon? Here's what he had to say back in 1979:

"When anyone complains about unfair competition, consumers beware. That is really a cry for special privilege, always at the expense of the consumer. What we need in this country is free competition. As consumers buying in an international market, the more unfair the competition the better. That means lower prices and better quality for us. If foreign governments want to use their taxpayers’ money to sell people in the United States goods below cost, why should we complain? Their own taxpayers will complain soon enough, and it will not last for very long.

http://www.aei.org/publication/milto...d-we-complain/

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

This user is on your Ignore List.

Why don't you make like a muppet and kermit suicide?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

don't overthink this, it will melt your limited brain. some things can be expressed in yes or no terms.

just to let you defecate .. er deflect again ...

"if there was no federal deficit would you be ok with unfair trade?"

"Unfair trade is any trade that is unfair" - TWK

now answer the fucking question or stop being an obfuscated asshole

CAN YOU READ??? FOR THE THIRD TIME, IF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND FOREIGN WORKERS PUT MONEY IN OUR POCKETS THROUGH UNFAIR TRADE, I'M FINE WITH IT. IF VIETNAM AND CHINA WANT TO UNFAIRLY SUBSIDIZE THEIR GARMENT INDUSTRIES, SO WE CAN BUY CHEAP CLOTHES THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE TO MANUFACTURE IN THE USA, THEN I'M ALL FOR IT. IF, SAY, JAPAN, REFUSES TO ALLOW IMPORTS OF USA BEEF, THEN I'M AGAINST IT.

THE DEFICIT, WHETHER IT'S THE TRADE DEFICIT OR FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT, IS IRRELEVANT.

I said the current account equals the change in savings less the change in investment. And a large federal deficit reduces savings. You didn't understand that, and somehow twisted it in your mind to mean that if we had a federal budget surplus then unfair trade is fine. I never said anything even remotely like that.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

CAN YOU READ??? FOR THE THIRD TIME, IF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND FOREIGN WORKERS PUT MONEY IN OUR POCKETS THROUGH UNFAIR TRADE, I'M FINE WITH IT. IF VIETNAM AND CHINA WANT TO UNFAIRLY SUBSIDIZE THEIR GARMENT INDUSTRIES, SO WE CAN BUY CHEAP CLOTHES THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE TO MANUFACTURE IN THE USA, THEN I'M ALL FOR IT. IF, SAY, JAPAN, REFUSES TO ALLOW IMPORTS OF USA BEEF, THEN I'M AGAINST IT.
THE DEFICIT, WHETHER IT'S THE TRADE DEFICIT OR FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT, IS IRRELEVANT.

so. you are for UNFAIR TRADE. you fucking commie.


and for the THIRD time you DID NOT answer the question.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad;1060803351 [B

If foreign governments want to use their taxpayers’ money to sell people in the United States goods below cost, why should we complain?[/B] Their own taxpayers will complain soon enough, and it will not last for very long.[/I]

Hear, hear. If somebody's going to spend $1.00 making something and sell it to us for $0.50, year after year, why do you want to turn that down?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what i mean and tiny brain said is if there was no federal (budget) deficit then a trade deficit wouldn't matter.

Ok, I follow what you're saying now. Tiny said the trade deficit is a symptom of our low national savings rate, and the biggest culprit behind our low savings rate is the federal govt which is a huge net borrower of funds.

My problem with tiny's argument is that our level of saving doesn't drive the trade deficit; rather, the trade deficit drives our need to offset it with capital inflows. (The tail doesn't wag the dog.) Tiny is correct when he says at the end of the day everything has to balance out mathematically. But we have no problem attracting enough capital to plug the holes in our trade in manufactured goods. And that capital is mostly foreign money seeking a safe haven or higher returns in the US, not borrowings from China or other problematic sources.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Hear, hear. If somebody's going to spend $1.00 making something and sell it to us for $0.50, year after year, why do you want to turn that down?

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with ol' Miltie. He made that statement back in 1979, before China's economy started taking off. In China's case, the part about their own taxpayers complaining so the subsidies "won't last very long" doesn't apply. China can keep subsidizing until the cows come home and they have driven many of our industries are out of business. Textiles might not matter much, but steel and microchips do.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

My problem with tiny's argument is that our level of saving doesn't drive the trade deficit; rather, the trade deficit drives our need to offset it with capital inflows. (The tail doesn't wag the dog.) Tiny is correct when he says at the end of the day everything has to balance out mathematically. But we have no problem attracting enough capital to plug the holes in our trade in manufactured goods. And that capital is mostly foreign money seeking a safe haven or higher returns in the US, not borrowings from China or other problematic sources.

LustyLad, I'm reluctant to argue with you, because you know a ton about this. I've read several articles written by economists who argued low national savings is the main reason or one of the main reasons for our current account deficit. They're probably not as smart as you though -- and I'm not being facetious.

You're undoubtedly right that we are better able than other countries to "attract enough capital to plug the holes in our trade in manufactured goods." There are other countries, with smaller current account deficits, that could not plug the hole and suffered mightily as a result - over the last 30 years, Indonesia, Argentina and Russia come to mind. But there's something magical about the U.S. dollar.

China holds $1.2 trillion in U.S. treasuries, not a lot compared to the total $15.3 trillion held by the public. And indeed a lot of investors in U.S. debt aren't problematic. Can we count on this forever? That the dollar will be the primary reserve currency and people in Latin America, Africa, etc. will prefer dollars instead of Euros, Swiss Francs, gold, whatever? That the dollar will retain its magic? Maybe. Or maybe not. In the early 80's it looked like it was losing it. I wonder if we start running up huge debt to the rest of the world if we could be putting ourselves at risk, like other countries do.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with ol' Miltie. He made that statement back in 1979, before China's economy started taking off. In China's case, the part about their own taxpayers complaining so the subsidies "won't last very long" doesn't apply. China can keep subsidizing until the cows come home and they have driven many of our industries are out of business. Textiles might not matter much, but steel and microchips do.

+1

Those are strategic industries that every country needs to insure its independence. The U.S. can ill afford to depend on other countries for those skills and resources. And, there's the piracy of intellectual property to consider. China should have to invest in its own R & D and not be allowed to carte blanche steal it from the U.S. Paying for the cost of research and development while China just steals it puts the U.S. at a disadvantage in the market place.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with ol' Miltie. He made that statement back in 1979, before China's economy started taking off. In China's case, the part about their own taxpayers complaining so the subsidies "won't last very long" doesn't apply. China can keep subsidizing until the cows come home and they have driven many of our industries are out of business. Textiles might not matter much, but steel and microchips do.

Actually it's a bigger problem if the subsidies don't last long. You cut prices below costs, put your competitors out of business, then raise them again and screw the consumer. And you do that as fast as you can. This works great for monopolies, and maybe could apply at the national level too.

If China were willing to manufacture certain items that cost $1.00 and sell them for $0.50, we're better served manufacturing something different where we can make a profit. That's an exaggerated example, but something like that has been going on, and it's part of the reason our standard of living is so much higher than theirs, even though China produces a lot. They're slaving away so we can live high on the hog.

Agreed, there are certain products that are strategically important, where this argument doesn't apply. Do steel and commodity chips belong in that category? Maybe or maybe not. We need them for defense purposes. On the other hand overall the economy and consumers benefit from low priced foreign steel and commodity (not high end) microchips. If you ban those from the USA, either directly or through high tariffs, it's going to hurt more than it would help.

[dilbert firestorm]

ont top of that, china is building a panopticon society using an honor credit system to regulate peoples behavior.

[Tiny]

Deleted post

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Damn right, trailerboy.

LOL! I sided with you and still you want to be a dick. Okay fine Wacko is right and you are an idiot

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Try as you might you can't change history, and Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's signature repealed Glass-Steagall, M T Brain Socket. Your inability to color within the lines is why your mommy took your crayons away, M T Brain Socket. And Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator and hildebeest did receive money from Russians, M T Brain Socket, not just Canadians. Rosatom is a Russian firm, M T Brain Socket. Rosatom controlled a part of Uranium One when it *donated* $9 million to hildebeest, M T Brain Socket.

LOL Glass-Steagall. You know dam well he tried to veto the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act until Star Blackmailed him into not blocking it. That was a Republican deal and everyone knows that. You are an idiot. And by the way quit adding other shit in just because you are losing the argument LOL!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

LOL Glass-Steagall. You know dam well he tried to veto the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act until Star Blackmailed him into not blocking it. That was a Republican deal and everyone knows that. You are an idiot. And by the way quit adding other shit in just because you are losing the argument LOL!

You're a lying SOB, M T Brain Socket! What everyone knows is that Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's boy, Larry Summers, lobbied for that bill and that Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator readily signed it into law repealing Glass-Steagall -- which led to the economic meltdown, M T Brain Socket.