Blame Canada!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump is right, the aluminum and steel industries are strategic industries. Which is why there is so much overproduction of steel and aluminum around the world because every country in the world considers steel and aluminum to be strategic industries. I was involved in both the iron (most of the efforts in making steel are the efforts to get iron) and the aluminum industry, we provided many of the heavy capital machines used in those industries.

The irony is that the US considers Canadian Aluminum to be a strategic industry to US security.

Is anyone surprised that Trump didn't know this?

I’m surprised that the GOP is doing nothing to stop these tariffs, tariffs that Trump doesn’t have the authority to apply.

The GOP hates this tariff idea, yet nothing from them.

 

[SimpleDon]

Is anyone surprised that Trump didn't know this?

I’m surprised that the GOP is doing nothing to stop these tariffs, tariffs that Trump doesn’t have the authority to apply.

The GOP hates this tariff idea, yet nothing from them.

I think that they are trying to lobby Trump out of the view of the media to avoid appearing to split with Trump. He does have the right to impose tariffs if it involves national security or a response to dumping or malfeasance like overt currency manipulation. It is in Section 301 of the Fair Trade Act of 1974.

Trump relying on the mutterings of a fellow upper-class twit in a steam room in one of his country clubs has started a Section 301 investigation of China's supposed currency manipulations. This is an idea that no one has been able to shake out of Trump because while it was possibly true in the early 1990's, it is definitely not true now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I read that there is a theory that this is to make people happy in PA-18, in a desperate attempt to hold that House seat which is up for election next week.

 

[funinspace]

Trump is right that globalization has hurt industries and their workers in the US. No developed country should expect any result other than this when embracing free trade with low labor cost countries.

The only reason for a developed country to do so would be to help the underdeveloped country, a kind of foreign aid. In this case, we have helped, inexplicitly, an enemy and rival, the last major communist country in the world, to save their economy. In the modern economy, especially when there are no restrictions on the capital flow out and the value that a developed country has is ideas and technical methodology, there is nothing to prevent these things crossing borders.

It would be better had we bestowed the benefits of making Mexico our low wage partner. It would have at least helped the problem we have with illegal immigration from Mexico. This wasn't an option for the neoliberals who needed the lowest possible wages to produce the highest possible profits to and the largest possible increase in the income of the wealthy to produce the miracle of trickle down, prosperity for all of us.

Free trade is a cornerstone of neoliberal ideology. Trump is going to find that the harshest critics of this policy are in his own party, Paul Ryan and the other Libertarian leaning, at least on economics, free market, free trade warriors. The major impact on the US was to lower the wage bill of the corporations who outsourced their production and a decrease in the economic activity in the US because of the lower wages. The corporations picked up another tool to suppress wage demands.

There is no reason to believe that this will start a trade war on the scale of the one started by the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised tariffs on virtually everything that was imported. There will be tariffs raised targeting American products but in the overall 20+ trillion dollar economy these won't have any measurable impact on the overall economy.

+1 This.

As an aside.... 500 more steel workers added to Illinois today: http://www.wtae.com/article/us-steel...plant/19154100

An extremely important aspect of this (and will not be mentioned by CNN) is these jobs are not Wal mart jobs but middle class jobs. A job where the worker has good health benefits and can actually support a family of 4. This is a victory for the US middle class that will not get any media attention.

You have a funny view about some of the mainstream media, as I found the CNN article in about 5 seconds:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/news/companies/trump-tariffs-steel-jobs/index.html

Two metal companies say they will create 800 jobs because of President Trump's looming tariffs on steel and aluminum.

But economists say the trade action will cost the economy thousands of jobs. Some of that analysis comes from the aluminum industry itself.

U.S. Steel announced on Wednesday that it will hire back 500 workers to restart operations at a previously shuttered blast furnace in Illinois.

FWIW, I’d say SimpleDon’s comments are far more spot on, especially regarding Mexico.

I'm actually surprised this happened. If I were the CEO of US Steel I think I would have played it safe and waited to make sure the tariffs actually take place. IMO there is a 50% chance Trump could change his mind under all the pressure from Goldman Sachs. Or the democrats might still impeach Trump over the fake Russia scandal.

How many guilty pleas with cooperation and indictments do you need before you recognize the reality that the Russian scandal is real? You clearly read far too many fake informational sites….

The future is always uncertain. In any case, without Trump there would be no prayer at all for these new jobs. Even Trumps own administration is fighting against this, never mind the entrenched Republicans and Democrats.

You are right that the Repugs in general don’t give a rats ass about working people. The Dum at least care at some levels, but also fail quite a bit. However, FFvC also doesn’t care no matter how deep you dive into that alt-reality land. However, the bigger economic driving factors are outside of their machinations. Globalization was coming either way, otherwise one might as well as long for the good old days of maintaining the horse and buggies. The Automation and the information age also have come regardless. The only jobs program both parties can agree upon is the military-complex, which is just about the least efficient way to spend government money for employment. We spend roughly 5.5% of our GDP on our military-complex and fake war on terror. Germany spends just under 2% of their GDP on their military, without their soldiers getting maimed and killed. If the US spent that little (note, that it probably shouldn’t be quite that low), we’d have over $600 billion to spend elsewhere. Yah know, like real infrastructure spending. And El Cheato has really ramped up the bombing campaigns across Asia and Africa, making Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, GD, et.al. much richer. The Dums would not support the military-complex nearly so much if not for the fear of being labeled 'soft' on terror, commies, bad guys by the Repugs who never seem to be satisfied with our military-complex bloat.

The below H2-B visa worker imporation is how much FFvC cares, which is higher number of imported workers than the year before. After all, the initiation fee is only $200,000 to get into the door. How could they afford to pay Real American workers. Those poor 0.1 Percenters, how could we demand more of them…
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-gets-...-mar-lago-despite-hire-american-pledge-702295

he Trump Organization has secured visas to hire 70 foreign workers who will be employed during the 2017-18 season as maids, cooks, and servers.

But anyway here is my scoreboard of what Trump has accomplished thus far for the middle class:
1. He brought down TPP

Like all trade agreements/arrangements it is a mixed bag, and simpleton thinking doesn’t get one very far. One of the ironies that the TPP was trying to resolve was clearing the import tariffs when an automotive part is shipped from the US to the EU. Mexico already has a deal with the EU. So if an automotive company wants to sell product in the US and in the EU, Mexico becomes the go to nation. See further details in the below article. Another part of the TPP effort was actually to provide a counter weight to the growing economic power of China.

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...e-free-trade-agreement-is-a-good-idea-feature

A senior Volkswagen executive tells us that when Silao, Mexico, recently won out over the U.S. as the site of a new engine factory, “it wasn’t because of the cheaper labor. It’s [Mexico’s] free-trade agreement with the E.U.”

2. He has attempted curtailment of immigration.

I assume you mean illegal immigration. Do you even care that it was already down by about a million since Pres. Obama took office? FFvC’s treatment of Dreamers and longtime immigrant children is a disgrace. FFvC ‘attempts’ are sick…

3. He shows promise in getting rid of NAFTA.

First Canada is not a bad guy and should not be scapegoated. Second, there many good reasons to want our southern neighbor to have a healthier economy. And who knows what this clown will actually do…

4. He has put China' on notice for unfair trade practices.

ROTFLMAO Words! While the Repugs/FFvC massively reduce Federal tax revenue to let the rich get ever richer, China has massively invested in expanding influence across Asia and has an massive Silk Road project under way. China has had a trillion+ dollar infrastructure project that has been ongoing for a hell of a long time. FFvC’s ‘infrastructure’ idea is a joke. Anyway, perhaps you have forgotten that Pres. Obama imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese tires and solar panels? Were you praising him then?

5. He has attempted to protect the coal industry. Which wont matter in the end, but it does show a real intent to help the working class.

Another joke upon workers to make them feel good, and will in the end hurt them. Feeding them bullshit as their industry dies, for good reasons, does not help.

6. Saving the steel and aluminum industry

Doing one thing to help one industry without a cohesive plan, without giving a damn about downstream industries, is quite short sighted.

Not that I agree with all of the things listed in the below article, but FFvC has also done lots to hurt the middle class/workers. You seem to have some sort of Rosy Trump glasses on. I’ll mostly just list the titles for the 36 item they came up with. Notice No. 8, with FFvC’s and the Repugs effort to dismantle the ACA, they are going to fuck over well over 10 million working people. I’m not surprised on No 15, as FFvC seemed to like defrauding people with his fake university. No 24 is about eliminated real programs that try to provide real assistance to displaced coal workers, instead FFvC’s fake help.

https://www.americanprogressaction....ent-trumps-policies-hurting-american-workers/

1. Weakening workplace safety protections for offshore drilling workers
2. Signing a tax bill into law that tilts the tax system further against workers
3. Limiting workers’ ability to decide with whom they want to form a union
4. Making it harder for workers to bargain with the companies that influence their working conditions
5. Beginning the process to roll back rules that modernized union elections
6. Urging the Supreme Court to undermine public sector unions
7. Proposing to make it easier for employers to pocket their employees’ tips
8. Threatening working families’ access to health care
Despite the repeated defeat of bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Trump is using his administrative power to sabotage working families’ access to marketplace coverage. On October 12, 2017, he signed an executive order that would increase premiums for middle-class Americans and small businesses; weaken protections for those with pre-existing conditions; and encourage junk plans with poor coverage. The same day, Trump announced the end of cost-sharing reduction payments, which help reduce deductibles and copays for low-income Americans. Compounding this, as part of his tax reform, President Trump later signed into law a repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise individual market premiums by 10 percent and result in 13 million fewer people having health insurance coverage by 2025.

9. Denying overtime to millions of working people
10. Disbanding labor-management forums for federal workers
11. Delaying and weakening mine inspection rule

14. Halting EEOC equal pay data collection
15. Rolling back gainful employment protection
In June 2017, Trump’s Department of Education announced that it will rewrite an Obama-era protection that helps to ensure that career training programs provide a good value to students. The rule was enacted to prevent training programs from receiving federal student aid if they leave graduates with too much debt relative to their earnings.

17. Discriminating against LGBT Americans in the workplace

21. Switching sides in Supreme Court case limiting workers’ right to sue
22. Proposing a budget that would slash funding for job training
23. Attacking a key anti-discrimination agency
24. Threatening to cut important programs for coal miners and their communities
Despite President Trump’s promise to support coal communities, the administration’s 2018 budget proposal outlines significant cuts to programs that would hurt coal miners, their families, and their communities. During its final two years, the Obama administration developed and implemented the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative to invest in struggling coal-dependent communities. The Trump budget would eliminate 7 of 12 programs from the POWER Initiative, including those that direct investment in small businesses, offer worker training and placement, and provide much-needed infrastructure investment.

26. Proposing taking food off the tables of struggling workers and their families
President Trump’s proposed budget also makes deep cuts to nutrition assistance, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

27. Reducing transparency in anti-union attacks
28. Rolling back guidance on who is an employer

33. Letting lawbreakers off the hook for safety violations

35. Letting lawbreaking government contractors off the hook

 

[Loren Pechtel]

+1 This.

As an aside.... 500 more steel workers added to Illinois today: http://www.wtae.com/article/us-steel-will-restart-granite-city-steel-plant/19154100

An extremely important aspect of this (and will not be mentioned by CNN) is these jobs are not Wal mart jobs but middle class jobs. A job where the worker has good health benefits and can actually support a family of 4. This is a victory for the US middle class that will not get any media attention.

Those 500 steel jobs will come at the expense of a lot more than 500 other jobs. Protectionism causes a net loss of jobs, not a gain.

 

[Horatio Parker]

+1 This.

As an aside.... 500 more steel workers added to Illinois today: http://www.wtae.com/article/us-steel-will-restart-granite-city-steel-plant/19154100

An extremely important aspect of this (and will not be mentioned by CNN) is these jobs are not Wal mart jobs but middle class jobs. A job where the worker has good health benefits and can actually support a family of 4. This is a victory for the US middle class that will not get any media attention.

Those 500 steel jobs will come at the expense of a lot more than 500 other jobs. Protectionism causes a net loss of jobs, not a gain.

You need this "victory" times 2000 just to get a decent start on the problem.

500 isn't even a blip.

 

[RVonse]

Those 500 steel jobs will come at the expense of a lot more than 500 other jobs.

I will allow that is possible. But before you can even talk about whether that is good or bad, you need to at least qualify what a job is. If a job can not support a family of 4 with 1 income, is that really a job? For example, if we gain 500 steel jobs and lose 1000 walmart jobs, I say we are a lot better off.

Protectionism causes a net loss of jobs, not a gain.

That's what Goldman Sachs will tell you. And that's what all the universities who are supported by globalists will tell you. And that is what all economists who have jobs that depend on the globalists will tell you too.

But if protectionism is a net loss of jobs, how come all the countries in the world do it anyway? Just about all the countries (including Canada) have a VAT tax. That is protectionism. But those same countries somehow get a pass whenever we talk about tariffs.

If protectionism is so bad as you think....how come protectionism worked for this country when tariffs were the only federal tax there was before the IRS? How come it worked when the US needed to protect its steel industry from England 200 years ago? How come it works so successfully today for China?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Those 500 steel jobs will come at the expense of a lot more than 500 other jobs.

I will allow that is possible. But before you can even talk about whether that is good or bad, you need to at least qualify what a job is. If a job can not support a family of 4 with 1 income, is that really a job? For example, if we gain 500 steel jobs and lose 1000 walmart jobs, I say we are a lot better off.

Protectionism causes a net loss of jobs, not a gain.

That's what Goldman Sachs will tell you. And that's what all the universities who are supported by globalists will tell you. And that is what all economists who have jobs that depend on the globalists will tell you too.

But if protectionism is a net loss of jobs, how come all the countries in the world do it anyway? Just about all the countries (including Canada) have a VAT tax. That is protectionism. But those same countries somehow get a pass whenever we talk about tariffs.

If protectionism is so bad as you think....how come protectionism worked for this country when tariffs were the only federal tax there was before the IRS? How come it worked when the US needed to protect its steel industry from England 200 years ago? How come it works so successfully today for China?

I think jobs are one of the poorer justifications for protectionism.

National security, emerging technologies, global competitiveness in a technical or engineering sense (not wages), are good reasons for protectionism.

The US was the most protectionist country on the planet until I think WWI. Countries who have reached the top of the economic food chain become free traders, because their domestic economies are very highly developed. Emerging countries need protectionism. Ha Joon Chang, the Korean economist, talks about growing up in Korea when their largest exports were seaweed and human hair. He said virtually all of his textbooks and entertainment were pirated. The govt was focused like a laser on developing an export economy. And we helped.

What does that mean for us? At this point, to be the market for these economies. Let the Koreans, Chinese and everybody else have dirty smelly factories with drudge labor to produce cheap consumer goods. We'll give them dollars, of which we have as many as we need and they're happy to get, and take the goods.

So what do we do with our people who might otherwise be employed making fucking widgets to sell to China? Let them be teacher aides, police auxiliaries, social workers, work in nursing homes. Or research, infrastructure,farming, performing, whatever we can come up with where people are productive. But GIVE THEM A JOB. Don't marginalize them and figure out ways to push them off the balance sheet. If the private sector can't make enough jobs, let the public sector step in.

500 jobs? Fuck that, I'd give EVERYONE who wants a job a job. At $15/hr with benefits.

OK, off my soapbox...

 

[RVonse]

The US was the most protectionist country on the planet until I think WWI.

This chart says it was the beginning of Bretton Woods agreement.

Countries who have reached the top of the economic food chain become free traders, because their domestic economies are very highly developed.

This chart seems to appear it started when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Emerging countries need protectionism.

If you look at how far China has come and how much the US has lost manufacturing, it can be said the US is back to becoming an emerging country again. At least manufacturing wise.

In any event, the current economic trajectory of the US is unsustainable. (national debt) We've had massive trade imbalance the last 30 years. And most of the previous presidents did nothing. Trump may fold to special interests too, but for now he's trying to change the equation.

In my opinion, something is better then nothing for this country. We are at the precipice now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those 500 steel jobs will come at the expense of a lot more than 500 other jobs.

I will allow that is possible. But before you can even talk about whether that is good or bad, you need to at least qualify what a job is. If a job can not support a family of 4 with 1 income, is that really a job? For example, if we gain 500 steel jobs and lose 1000 walmart jobs, I say we are a lot better off.

So it's better to be unemployed than working at Wal-Mart????

And for starters it's 45,000 auto jobs. Good trade??

Protectionism causes a net loss of jobs, not a gain.

That's what Goldman Sachs will tell you. And that's what all the universities who are supported by globalists will tell you. And that is what all economists who have jobs that depend on the globalists will tell you too.

But if protectionism is a net loss of jobs, how come all the countries in the world do it anyway? Just about all the countries (including Canada) have a VAT tax. That is protectionism. But those same countries somehow get a pass whenever we talk about tariffs.

VAT isn't protectionism, it's just a variation on the sales tax.

If protectionism is so bad as you think....how come protectionism worked for this country when tariffs were the only federal tax there was before the IRS? How come it worked when the US needed to protect its steel industry from England 200 years ago? How come it works so successfully today for China?

Successfully for China? You realize that their boom times are the result of insane borrowing that's bound to collapse at some point?

 

[Horatio Parker]

This chart says it was the beginning of Bretton Woods agreement.
This chart seems to appear it started when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

You realize that the deficits were the reason for leaving the gold standard, not the result. Nixon needed the flexibility of a fiat currency to do the spending he wanted to do. On the Vietnam war.

Emerging countries need protectionism.

If you look at how far China has come and how much the US has lost manufacturing, it can be said the US is back to becoming an emerging country again. At least manufacturing wise.

In any event, the current economic trajectory of the US is unsustainable. (national debt) We've had massive trade imbalance the last 30 years. And most of the previous presidents did nothing. Trump may fold to special interests too, but for now he's trying to change the equation.

In my opinion, something is better then nothing for this country. We are at the precipice now.

Que dramatico...at the precipice.

I'm not so sure that producing lots of goods is the better situation. Do you know what terms of trade are? It means getting the most imports for your exports. It's formulated that way because exports are a cost, and imports are a benefit. Our terms of trade are so advantageous that our trading partners are willing to give us real goods, real wealth for dollars, which are bits of data on a computer.

For reasons of national security alone we certainly should retain a significant manufacturing capability. But I don't think jobs should have much to do with. What's important is being able to defend ourselves in case of supply chain disruption. Other than that, I think the important thing is to be at the forefront, to innovate and develop new processes and technologies.

We can always employ out people if we choose. We haven't chosen to for 50 years or so, since full employment was abandoned(yes a country can spend it's way to full employment). But to go backwards just for the sake of the trade deficit makes no sense to me. The most likely way it'll play out is not a fall from a precipice but a gradual shift as demand for dollars fall. When we have to build our own toasters is when we should do it.

I appreciate the Trump supporters equate offshoring with unemployment. But that unemployment is a choice, not a necessity. It's political, not economic. The Trump mentality is only the private sector can create jobs, so we have to "bring jobs back". We don't.

As for the national debt, once again, it's just a record of dollars spent into existence and not paid back in taxes. It doesn't have to repaid, and in fact the govt doesn't even have to issue debt nor is dependent on the bond markets. Think about it, the only thing that can be used to purchase govt securities are dollars. So all that's happening is an exchange of a non-interest paying govt debt(cash) for interest paying govt debt(bonds).

 

[RVonse]

So it's better to be unemployed than working at Wal-Mart????

Absolutely, and not just my opinion. According to the Chamber of Commerce, whenever a manufacturing plant closes its of no concern because those workers are now freed up to find jobs that the economy needs. So if all the Wal Mart workers are layed due to steel tariffs this is good thing. Because those workers are freed for steel making jobs in the post tariff economy. Steel making jobs which also happen to be better paying jobs as well.

And for starters it's 45,000 auto jobs. Good trade??

If true it wouldn't be. But that isn't true. Furthermore, there is a big difference at this point (post GM bailout) when someone says an auto job. An old auto job is equivalent to a steel making job. But a new auto job is more equivalent to a Wal Mart job.

VAT isn't protectionism, it's just a variation on the sales tax.

You might call it a sales tax but it amounts to protectionism.

Successfully for China? You realize that their boom times are the result of insane borrowing that's bound to collapse at some point?

The Chinese boom times could not possibly arrived in the first place without the manufacturing capability the US gave away to them.

 

[RVonse]

Que dramatico...at the precipice.

I'm not so sure that producing lots of goods is the better situation. Do you know what terms of trade are? It means getting the most imports for your exports. It's formulated that way because exports are a cost, and imports are a benefit. Our terms of trade are so advantageous that our trading partners are willing to give us real goods, real wealth for dollars, which are bits of data on a computer.

For reasons of national security alone we certainly should retain a significant manufacturing capability. But I don't think jobs should have much to do with. What's important is being able to defend ourselves in case of supply chain disruption. Other than that, I think the important thing is to be at the forefront, to innovate and develop new processes and technologies.

We can always employ out people if we choose. We haven't chosen to for 50 years or so, since full employment was abandoned(yes a country can spend it's way to full employment). But to go backwards just for the sake of the trade deficit makes no sense to me. The most likely way it'll play out is not a fall from a precipice but a gradual shift as demand for dollars fall. When we have to build our own toasters is when we should do it.

I appreciate the Trump supporters equate offshoring with unemployment. But that unemployment is a choice, not a necessity. It's political, not economic. The Trump mentality is only the private sector can create jobs, so we have to "bring jobs back". We don't.

As for the national debt, once again, it's just a record of dollars spent into existence and not paid back in taxes. It doesn't have to repaid, and in fact the govt doesn't even have to issue debt nor is dependent on the bond markets. Think about it, the only thing that can be used to purchase govt securities are dollars. So all that's happening is an exchange of a non-interest paying govt debt(cash) for interest paying govt debt(bonds).

When it comes down to the trade and the deficit its hard to know what to believe now. For starters, you can not trust any of the so called economists or pointy heads at the universities because they are all one way or another in bed with the deep state globalists who have made and continue to make their money by screwing US labor.

So then you look at people who simply make money by placing bets on what they believe will happen to the future of the US economy and/or dollar. People like Peter Schiff who believes there will be a huge and sudden crash in the very near future. Who believes the dollar will hyperinflate to nothing in a very rapid decent. Or Harry Dent who (like Peter Schiff) also believes the world is going to come to a sudden, unpredictable, and dramatic end. But unlike Peter, Dent believes the dollar will be ok at least at first. Simply because the dollar will still be the "best house in a bad neighborhood", like it was during the 2008 crises.

I also try to pay attention to mass media. But instead of talking about real economic subjects which I am interested in, most mass media seem to be much more content to talk about how the porn stars are hating Trump right now.

So you could actually be right as well. But I tend not to believe it because both Dent and Schiff believe some sort of crash is coming. They disagree about the dollar but they do say it will be a crash and not a soft landing. And that sounds more reasonable based on the things I have seen in my lifetime as well. I do not think a trade deficit can continue forever. And when the consequences unload I do not think it will be a pleasant transition but a sudden and dramatic crash. But that is just my best guess too.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Both these guys look like salesmen to me. I prefer academics or businessmen like Warren Mosler who's not trying to sell me anything.

There could be a crash coming, but I don't think either the national debt or the trade deficit will have anything to do with it. Apologists for the last crash tried to blame subprime borrowers, but it seems to me the impetus was coming from Wall st. Commercial banks pushing loans to inflate asset prices.

 

[blastula]

When it comes down to the trade and the deficit its hard to know what to believe now. For starters, you can not trust any of the so called economists or pointy heads at the universities because they are all one way or another in bed with the deep state globalists who have made and continue to make their money by screwing US labor.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[funinspace]

Que dramatico...at the precipice.

I'm not so sure that producing lots of goods is the better situation. Do you know what terms of trade are? It means getting the most imports for your exports. It's formulated that way because exports are a cost, and imports are a benefit. Our terms of trade are so advantageous that our trading partners are willing to give us real goods, real wealth for dollars, which are bits of data on a computer.

For reasons of national security alone we certainly should retain a significant manufacturing capability. But I don't think jobs should have much to do with. What's important is being able to defend ourselves in case of supply chain disruption. Other than that, I think the important thing is to be at the forefront, to innovate and develop new processes and technologies.

We can always employ out people if we choose. We haven't chosen to for 50 years or so, since full employment was abandoned(yes a country can spend it's way to full employment). But to go backwards just for the sake of the trade deficit makes no sense to me. The most likely way it'll play out is not a fall from a precipice but a gradual shift as demand for dollars fall. When we have to build our own toasters is when we should do it.

I appreciate the Trump supporters equate offshoring with unemployment. But that unemployment is a choice, not a necessity. It's political, not economic. The Trump mentality is only the private sector can create jobs, so we have to "bring jobs back". We don't.

As for the national debt, once again, it's just a record of dollars spent into existence and not paid back in taxes. It doesn't have to repaid, and in fact the govt doesn't even have to issue debt nor is dependent on the bond markets. Think about it, the only thing that can be used to purchase govt securities are dollars. So all that's happening is an exchange of a non-interest paying govt debt(cash) for interest paying govt debt(bonds).

When it comes down to the trade and the deficit its hard to know what to believe now. For starters, you can not trust any of the so called economists or pointy heads at the universities because they are all one way or another in bed with the deep state globalists who have made and continue to make their money by screwing US labor.

So then you look at people who simply make money by placing bets on what they believe will happen to the future of the US economy and/or dollar. People like Peter Schiff who believes there will be a huge and sudden crash in the very near future. Who believes the dollar will hyperinflate to nothing in a very rapid decent. Or Harry Dent who (like Peter Schiff) also believes the world is going to come to a sudden, unpredictable, and dramatic end. But unlike Peter, Dent believes the dollar will be ok at least at first. Simply because the dollar will still be the "best house in a bad neighborhood", like it was during the 2008 crises.

I also try to pay attention to mass media. But instead of talking about real economic subjects which I am interested in, most mass media seem to be much more content to talk about how the porn stars are hating Trump right now.

So you could actually be right as well. But I tend not to believe it because both Dent and Schiff believe some sort of crash is coming. They disagree about the dollar but they do say it will be a crash and not a soft landing. And that sounds more reasonable based on the things I have seen in my lifetime as well. I do not think a trade deficit can continue forever. And when the consequences unload I do not think it will be a pleasant transition but a sudden and dramatic crash. But that is just my best guess too.

FWIW, I’m not 100% against tariffs. But I am against a buffoon thrashing global trade without a real plan. The below article goes into the topic of trade and such issues:

Trump’s Tariffs Could Actually Work — If He Has A Plan

Comparing the US to Mexico ($9249/capita) or China ($8583/capita) is not very helpful as they are much poorer nations. I will be comparing some things between the US and Germany and Canada.

VATs aren’t protectionism by design, though they can cause some issues for the countries that don’t have them. However, VATs are a regressive form of taxation. At the same time, I think the impact is overblown, when one looks at all the tax burdens. The US state sales taxes don’t apply to exports either. The US also has much lower total taxation than other modern countries. Here is a decent article covering VAT (or lack thereof) issues can be, even if I disagree with their conclusions: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/sorry-but-the-us-does-ind_b_12242314.html

One has to consider all the costs for corporations when comparing the costs towards making products to really make a fair comparison. Here is tax revenue to GDP (1), and one can see that both countries tax far more heavily in total:
US 26%
Germany 44.5%
Canada 39.8%

When only comparing effective corporate tax rates, one can see that the US is similar to Germany respectively at 18.6% and 15.5%. Though Canada’s corporate tax rate is much lower at 8.5%.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/5417...e-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world

US corporations on average spend $10k per employee subsidizing health care as part of their cost of doing business. UHC removes this as direct business burden. Germany provides near free university education for their citizens as well. One doesn’t graduate with huge amounts of debt, which makes for easier living, and directly helps the middle class. In the US, the average public university tuition is now roughly $10k(2), compared to roughly $6k in Canada.

Below lists the 3 countries by GDP per capita (3); and from that we can easily see that the US does not have an income issue on average:
US $59.5k
Germany $44.2k
Canada $44.8k

Germany and Canada spend only 1.2% and 1.0% respectively as a percent of their GDP on their military. The US places a huge burden upon itself protecting countries like South Korea (talk about major imports). The US spends nearly a trillion dollars a year on its military-complex. Even if we only spent 2.5%, that would be a $500 billion dollar savings for other spending each year.

Now you have to ask yourself, which party is more like the Germans and Canadians on these issue; and which side is Don the Con on?
UHC – no contest
Lower College costs for students – no contest
Military-complex – A mixed bag, but El Cheato has pushed hard to boast spending and had significantly increased bombing across Asia and Africa. And again, I think it is pretty clear that the Dums wouldn’t be so pro military spending and bombing w/o the Repug scare mongering.
Progressive taxation to pay for real things – no contest


Refs:
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
(2) https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/employers-to-spend-about-10000-on-health-care-for-each-worker.html
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita


I’m not going to shift into discussions of the global economy, or what might happen in a decade or two. On to silly stuff like Peter Schiff (I know less about Harry Dent than Arthur Dent, so I’ll ignore him). Schiff has been a gloom and doomer for nearly 20 years. Fine you don’t like ‘regular’ economists. But do you realize just how wrong Peter Schiff has been many a time. But yes, he did see the emergent financial crisis, which propelled him to more fame. He expected big time inflation after the recent financial crisis and gold shooting thru the roof. He also thinks the US should get rid of minimum wage laws. FWIW, I did use to read some of his writings up to about 5-7 years ago...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff

In a March 2009 speech, Schiff said that it would be impossible for the US public debt to China to be repaid unless the US dollar's value is substantially diluted through inflation. In September 2009, with gold below $1,000 per ounce, Schiff said that he foresaw gold at over $5000 per ounce in the next couple years and that the stock market rally which began that year was a "rally in a bear market."[30] As of 2016, the price of an ounce of gold has always been less than $2,200 and typically under $1,500.

You drop hints about the gold standard, and cite people who cling to hard currency. I’d recommend reading this book by a real economist (and generally non-political) Barry Eichengreen, called Golden Fetters. He makes a good argument that many countries trying to get back onto the gold standard was part of what went wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Fetters-Depression-1919-1939-Development/dp/0195101138

It explores the connections between the gold standard--the framework regulating international monetary affairs until 1931--and the Great Depression that broke out in 1929. Eichengreen shows how economic policies, in conjunction with the imbalances created by World War I, gave rise to the global crisis of the 1930s. He demonstrates that the gold standard fundamentally constrained the economic policies that were pursued and that it was largely responsible for creating the unstable economic environment on which those policies acted.

 

[Horatio Parker]

FWIW, I’m not 100% against tariffs. But I am against a buffoon thrashing global trade without a real plan.

Yes, exactly. What Trump wants is favorable coverage. So let's have a ticker tape parade over 500 jobs.

You drop hints about the gold standard, and cite people who cling to hard currency. I’d recommend reading this book by a real economist (and generally non-political) Barry Eichengreen, called Golden Fetters. He makes a good argument that many countries trying to get back onto the gold standard was part of what went wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Fetters-Depression-1919-1939-Development/dp/0195101138

It explores the connections between the gold standard--the framework regulating international monetary affairs until 1931--and the Great Depression that broke out in 1929. Eichengreen shows how economic policies, in conjunction with the imbalances created by World War I, gave rise to the global crisis of the 1930s. He demonstrates that the gold standard fundamentally constrained the economic policies that were pursued and that it was largely responsible for creating the unstable economic environment on which those policies acted.

Commodity currencies are constrained by design. Credit currency systems are far more flexible.

You might find this book interesting:

http://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf

Among many other things, he explains how the US contributed to the instability which lead to WWII by insisting the allies repay their WWI debts.

 

[funinspace]

You might find this book interesting:

http://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf

Among many other things, he explains how the US contributed to the instability which lead to WWII by insisting the allies repay their WWI debts.

Thanks, I'll have to add that to my non-fiction reading list. Right now the list is a little full on technical stuff, so it will be a while...