- Apr 12, 2011
- 3,814
- 758
- 130
from: An Open Letter To President Trump And Congress On Trade Agreements
STEPHAN F. GOHMANN 6:09 PM ET
Dear Mr. Trump and Members of Congress,
You say that we have bad trade agreements with many nations and you intend to fix them. In particular, you intend to renegotiate agreements with Mexico and China, because they subsidize their goods or manipulate their currencies to make their products cheaper relative to American-made goods. Your argument is that this hurts American business.
Of course, you ignore the other side of the coin. When a consumer spends less on an imported good, he has more to spend on other goods. And when the U.S. trades with a foreign country, our dollars that go overseas come back either as investments or the purchase of other goods. The bottom line: Contrary to the rhetoric, trade agreements benefit consumers.
Mr. Trump, I understand that your administration will "crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process." I hope you will honor this promise and consider fixing an agreement we have with one violator which supplies us with inexpensive light and heating...
...the sun is giving us the light and heat for free...
...go ahead and renegotiate all these agreements, but please, do be consistent and renegotiate this terrible agreement we have with the sun. It's been lording over us for eons!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
My econ prof made this point years ago, it'd been offered (iirc) by some French laissez-faire guy a few centuries ago. There's a contrary view at Articles: Do Trade Deficits Matter? – The Debate Heats Up and he offers these reasons for cutting that mean old trade defiict:
STEPHAN F. GOHMANN 6:09 PM ET
Dear Mr. Trump and Members of Congress,
You say that we have bad trade agreements with many nations and you intend to fix them. In particular, you intend to renegotiate agreements with Mexico and China, because they subsidize their goods or manipulate their currencies to make their products cheaper relative to American-made goods. Your argument is that this hurts American business.
Of course, you ignore the other side of the coin. When a consumer spends less on an imported good, he has more to spend on other goods. And when the U.S. trades with a foreign country, our dollars that go overseas come back either as investments or the purchase of other goods. The bottom line: Contrary to the rhetoric, trade agreements benefit consumers.
Mr. Trump, I understand that your administration will "crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process." I hope you will honor this promise and consider fixing an agreement we have with one violator which supplies us with inexpensive light and heating...
...the sun is giving us the light and heat for free...
...go ahead and renegotiate all these agreements, but please, do be consistent and renegotiate this terrible agreement we have with the sun. It's been lording over us for eons!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
My econ prof made this point years ago, it'd been offered (iirc) by some French laissez-faire guy a few centuries ago. There's a contrary view at Articles: Do Trade Deficits Matter? – The Debate Heats Up and he offers these reasons for cutting that mean old trade defiict:
- Trade deficits subtract from GDP growth.
- Requiring balanced trade would reduce barriers to U.S. products.
- Balancing trade would increase fixed-investment and long-term growth.
- Trade deficits give us debt, which will have to be repaid with interest.
- Trade deficits endanger our national security.
