|
Post by Christine on Aug 3, 2018 18:34:11 GMT -5
But I'll note this: if trade deficits are never bad and, indeed, are always good--which seems to be what your position has become--does that mean Germany and other countries with trade surpluses are fucked? I mean, their situations must suck mightily, because applying how you think the balance of payments is reached, no one must be interested in investing any money in the German economy and it must be struggling. In no way have I claimed or insinuated that trade deficits are good, nor that surpluses are bad. The point is that there is balance. As far as I can tell, trade deficits and surpluses exist, and the resulting flow of funds exist, because of the relative values of currency among nations, and the relative costs (or scarcity) of producing goods and providing services among nations. There is no "good" or "bad" unless -- which I've asked from the beginning -- a goods trade surplus is better than a foreign capital investment. My two points in this regard are (1) the trade deficit isn't being "financed by debt" - it is partially debt, 20% via treasury bills and bonds (what "America" is on the hook for, as it were) if the source I linked is correct, and it bears pointing out because your rhetoric is needlessly dire, imo - and (2) calling the trade deficit a problem because of government deficit spending and/or consumer debt is putting the onus on trade deficits, as opposed to putting the onus on... deficit spending and consumer debt. I reviewed this thread, and at the beginning, you noted that the trade deficit isn't a cause, it's a indicator. How do you call an indicator a problem? But you proceeded to do so, over and over again. And it wouldn't be a big deal, honestly, if people weren't ACTUALLY blaming U.S. debt on foreign trade. But they are. So, while I do take your meaning and share your concerns, I disagree with your insistence on harping on the debt problem in a discussion on foreign trade and whether it's bad to have a trade deficit. I also would have liked to delve more into foreign investment (the 80% minus whatever % is corporate debt) and whether that is a concern. I also would have liked to discuss the effect of the demand for U.S. dollars as a result of the trade deficit - how that works and whether it's more or less volatile than demand for goods. And you know, I've mentioned some of this, but you seem to have skipped over those parts. At any rate, I'm happy to leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 3, 2018 19:45:06 GMT -5
I reviewed this thread, and at the beginning, you noted that the trade deficit isn't a cause, it's a indicator. How do you call an indicator a problem? High blood pressure is an indicator. And many people would call it a problem. In economics, there are a ton of things termed as indicators. For instance, the unemployment rate, a country's GDP, and of course the various market indices. A very high unemployment rate can fairly be called a problem, I think. As can a very low GDP. Or a DJIA in free fall. You're off base here.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 3, 2018 20:10:37 GMT -5
I reviewed this thread, and at the beginning, you noted that the trade deficit isn't a cause, it's a indicator. How do you call an indicator a problem? High blood pressure is an indicator. And many people would call it a problem. In economics, there are a ton of things termed as indicators. For instance, the unemployment rate, a country's GDP, and of course the various market indices. A very high unemployment rate can fairly be called a problem, I think. As can a very low GDP. Or a DJIA in free fall. You're off base here. Oh FFS. No, I'm not. You're in pedanticville. That you pick this one sentence in my post to respond to, ignoring the surrounding argument I made regarding it, not to mention everything else I said outside of it? Seems clear that all you want is to "win" on this one pet cause of yours, and it doesn't matter that I agree with you that consumer debt and government debt/deficits are a major concern. You say you're tired of repeating yourself, and yet, this is the only part of the discussion you want to continue to address. You didn't address c.e.'s questions either. We can't actually have a broader discussion on trade, trade deficits, foreign investment, I guess, because it's all about this one hill you've planted your flag on.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 4, 2018 6:33:26 GMT -5
I picked that one part because your point re "indicators" is nonsensical. I'm not in "pedanticville." Claiming that an indicator can't be a problem just doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. If you think it does, I don't want to say what "ville" you're in...
And right, I didn't reply to anything else because I would just be me repeating myself.
|
|