'Free Trade' Means Less Employment

[expat_panama]

...This nation became the wealthiest nation on earth behind protective tariffs....

No it didn't. This nation became the wealthiest nation on earth with open trade going back to the Washington administration --back they were even working on a trade agreement with China. They stayed clear of 'protective tariffs' and kept rates low enough to maximize revenue.

All taxes --whether on imports, wages, or cigarettes-- can either raise revenue with a low rate or stop the sales with high rates. Low rates then meant a lot of trade. High rates in the 1930's meant low revenue and high unemployment. Low import tax rates now mean high import tax revenue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now I remember who tried to convince me how offshoring was good for America.

LOL
thanks for the reminder.

Free trade is good for America, and the world. No country in the history of the world has ever been destroyed by trade. Many countries that have tried to isolate themselves and protect themselves from trad no longer exist.

This nation became the wealthiest nation on earth behind protective tariffs.

Hell, QQ, our goverment paid for most of its operations with revenue from tariffs. We didn't have income tax for 150 years because, in large part, the government RAN on tariff revenues.

READ THE HISTORY OF THE NATION YOU PREPORT TO LOVE.

You have OBVIOUSLY been completely misinformed.

It did not. It became the wealthiest nation in the world because we had vast natural resources.

 

[Brutus]

It did not. It became the wealthiest nation in the world because we had vast natural resources.

In fact, resources have nothing to do with it. Japan has none, Arabs have vast!!! America's only resource is freedom and liberty from government, i.,e. capitalism. The second Red China switched they got rich too after centuries of deadly liberal poverty.

 

[Brutus]

This nation became the wealthiest nation on earth behind protective tariffs.

absurd!! you don't get wealthy when the government taxes imports so you have to pay more. Paying more makes you poorer not wealthier.

 

[Brutus]

we have a huge deficit with China and Japan. That means they have a ton of US dollars...

That's really easy to think which is probably why most people say that. It's not true though and it's not what happens.
When Chinese or Japanese factories sell stuff to Americans they require payment in Yuan and Yen, not dollars. The dollars go to a currency exchange and get converted to Yuan and Yen, and the currency exchange only keeps that big pile of dollars long enough to swap for something else. Payments across borders for buying and selling stuff always balances. It's called the Balance of Payments

this is econ. 101 class one day one. We buy in dollars, China gets dollars. That is how they got $1.3 trillion them to be exact. Read and learn:

BBC nov 2006- "That sum is the largest holding of foreign exchange reserves in the world - and more than the annual value of economic activity in all but a handful of the world's big economies.

The huge surplus is a product of China's success as an exporter to the world.

China's trade surplus, the difference between the amount it sells and buys from the world, has topped $100bn, with the imbalance especially marked with the US.

As a result, China receives more and more foreign currency each year, which it puts in its reserves."

So how can there be a trade deficit? The only way we can buy more goods'n'services from foreigners then they from us, is when they buy more other stuff from us.

more econ 101 for you. There is no trade deficit,... except because the liberals won't pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. If balanced
then there would be no Treasuries to buy and they would have to buy American goods and services. That would end the recession and unemployment.

The 'other stuff' is capital and financial assets like bonds, copyrights, real estate, stocks, patents, etc. Selling more than buying of that stuff causes a 'Capital Surplus' which is always equal to and pays for the 'trade deficit'.

above

...If we had a Republcan Balanced Budget Amendment and so no debt to sell China and Japan they would have to buy our goods and services, and thus reduce our unemployment.

OK, foreigners buying T-bills either adds to the capital surplus paid with a trade deficit, or it's covered when Americans buy foreign bonds, real estate, etc. Foreigners not buying T-bills won't make them buy our goods.

more econ 101 for you. they bought 1.3 trillion worth of Tbills!!! IF they could not buy them what would they do with the dollars? they would be under enormous pressure to buy our goods or raise their prices which would help us just as much!! Obviously they buy the Tbills because they don't want to do anything else with the money!!
A BBA means we are responsible human beings, not liberals, and that changes the world 100%.

 

[expat_panama]

We started out with--

...we have a huge deficit with China and Japan. That means they have a ton of US dollars...

--and now we're getting into--

...We buy in dollars, China gets dollars. That is how they got $1.3 trillion them to be exact...

That number needs a link because others say true exact number is really $1.5T (CHINA BUSTED:has 1.5 trillion dollars), or $2.0T (China May Dump 2 Trillion Dollars Soon), or maybe even as high as $43T (43 Trillion Dollars In China). The key here the nature of the $1.3T (or 1.5 or 2.0 or 43) because it can't be the Great Stash of China hidden in the Great Mattress of China over next to the Great Wall of China.

Now, some people say the Chinese trillions of US dollars is the total cumulative value of all the financial and capital assets they bought from Americans when they sold goods'n'services to us. That might be a good start for us because we're talking about the trade deficit so that means we're working with the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

They have a page on the Balance of Payments, and going to the interactive tables for international payments you can get the records for all US/China transactions. The total cumulative value of of all the Chinese-owned financial assets bought in the United States since 1999 including U.S. government securities, U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. securities other than U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. currency, and other liabilities, adds up to $1.632,590T. Exactly. If that's what you're talking about then we could be on the same page here.

 

[Brutus]

If that's what you're talking about then we could be on the same page here.

same page as to amount but so what? As I recall my point was that China could not buy treasury bills if the liberals would pass a BBA. Then the Chinese and Japanese would have to buy our products or raise their prices!! The trade deficit, recession, and loss of jobs is created by liberal budget deficits.

 

[uscitizen]

If that's what you're talking about then we could be on the same page here.

same page as to amount but so what? As I recall my point was that China could not buy treasury bills if the liberals would pass a BBA. Then the Chinese and Japanese would have to buy our products or raise their prices!! The trade deficit, recession, and loss of jobs is created by liberal budget deficits.

but the republican led budget defecits were good things?

 

[Brutus]

If that's what you're talking about then we could be on the same page here.

same page as to amount but so what? As I recall my point was that China could not buy treasury bills if the liberals would pass a BBA. Then the Chinese and Japanese would have to buy our products or raise their prices!! The trade deficit, recession, and loss of jobs is created by liberal budget deficits.

but the republican led budget defecits were good things?

this maybe over your head but after Newt lost out because he pushed the BBA too hard, Republicans retreated. Now with the Tea Party, libertarians, a communist president, great recession, China, and $14 trillion debt they are back to making liberal deficits illegal with a BBA. If not clear please feel free to ask questions.

 

[uscitizen]

same page as to amount but so what? As I recall my point was that China could not buy treasury bills if the liberals would pass a BBA. Then the Chinese and Japanese would have to buy our products or raise their prices!! The trade deficit, recession, and loss of jobs is created by liberal budget deficits.

but the republican led budget defecits were good things?

this maybe over your head but after Newt lost out because he pushed the BBA too hard, Republicans retreated. Now with the Tea Party, libertarians, a communist president, great recession, China, and $14 trillion debt they are back to making liberal deficits illegal with a BBA. If not clear please feel free to ask questions.

Newt lost out over personal scandals.
That and being half bat shit crazy.

 

[Brutus]

but the republican led budget defecits were good things?

this maybe over your head but after Newt lost out because he pushed the BBA too hard, Republicans retreated. Now with the Tea Party, libertarians, a communist president, great recession, China, and $14 trillion debt they are back to making liberal deficits illegal with a BBA. If not clear please feel free to ask questions.

Newt lost out over personal scandals.
That and being half bat shit crazy.

most agree he lost out in large part becuase of BBA and government shut downs. In any case there was not broad public suppport for them and so Republicans retreated until now.

It hasn't changed since Jeffersom formed the Republican party in 1794. Republicans encourage productivity while Democrats buy votes from moochers and welfare lovers

 

[uscitizen]

Umm you mean the republicans did not retreat from their recent opportunity to shut down the govt?

Actually it appears that their long term goal has been to shut it down thru bankruptcy for decades.
Then they can privatize it. Officially that is.

 

[Brutus]

Umm you mean the republicans did not retreat from their recent opportunity to shut down the govt?

it remains to be seen if they will retreat. I'm sure they will listen to Newt and the polls very carefully to help them decide how far to push it

Actually it appears that their long term goal has been to shut it down thru bankruptcy for decades.
Then they can privatize it. Officially that is.

in fact it does not appear that way to anyone but you. who knows what would happen with a longer term shut down. It would probably hurt Republicans since country is now very addicted to welfare in all its liberal forms.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm you mean the republicans did not retreat from their recent opportunity to shut down the govt?

it remains to be seen if they will retreat. I'm sure they will listen to Newt and the polls very carefully to help them decide how far to push it

Actually it appears that their long term goal has been to shut it down thru bankruptcy for decades.
Then they can privatize it. Officially that is.

in fact it does not appear that way to anyone but you. who knows what would happen with a longer term shut down. It would probably hurt Republicans since country is now very addicted to welfare in all its liberal forms.

so? ONly me, I can handle that I was pretty mucha lone when I predicted where we are now, years before it happened. I saw it as inevitable just did not know the exact timeframe.
I said we were in for a long donwturn and slow slide down to where we would learn to live with less.
I said Iraq would be a quagmire and last for years cost trillions and thousands of lives when others said 6 months and then just andother 6 months, just another 6 months, etc.
I agreed with Ross about the big sucking sound of NAFTA.
I predicted that globalization and free trade would lower the living standard for the majority of Americans.

so far I have beat the experts, I will settle for that and wait to be vindicated by the future if necessary.

 

[Brutus]

Umm you mean the republicans did not retreat from their recent opportunity to shut down the govt?

it remains to be seen if they will retreat. I'm sure they will listen to Newt and the polls very carefully to help them decide how far to push it

Actually it appears that their long term goal has been to shut it down thru bankruptcy for decades.
Then they can privatize it. Officially that is.

in fact it does not appear that way to anyone but you. who knows what would happen with a longer term shut down. It would probably hurt Republicans since country is now very addicted to welfare in all its liberal forms.

so? ONly me, I can handle that I was pretty mucha lone when I predicted where we are now, years before it happened. I saw it as inevitable just did not know the exact timeframe.
I said we were in for a long donwturn and slow slide down to where we would learn to live with less.
I said Iraq would be a quagmire and last for years cost trillions and thousands of lives when others said 6 months and then just andother 6 months, just another 6 months, etc.
I agreed with Ross about the big sucking sound of NAFTA.
I predicted that globalization and free trade would lower the living standard for the majority of Americans.

so far I have beat the experts, I will settle for that and wait to be vindicated by the future if necessary.

please stop clowning and present your most substantive argument in support of liberaism.

 

[expat_panama]

... my point was that China could not buy treasury bills if the liberals would pass a BBA.

The Fed will continue to conduct T-bill auctions every week with or without the BBA.

...Then the Chinese and Japanese would have to buy our products or raise their prices!!

Even if preventing T-bill purchases by the PRC were possible, it wouldn't make them by ours or anyone elses products.

...The trade deficit, recession, and loss of jobs is created by liberal budget deficits.

Trade deficits have nothing to do with budget deficits, neither affects the other and never has.

 

[sparky]

it remains to be seen if they will retreat. I'm sure they will listen to Newt and the polls very carefully to help them decide how far to push it



in fact it does not appear that way to anyone but you. who knows what would happen with a longer term shut down. It would probably hurt Republicans since country is now very addicted to welfare in all its liberal forms.

so? ONly me, I can handle that I was pretty mucha lone when I predicted where we are now, years before it happened. I saw it as inevitable just did not know the exact timeframe.
I said we were in for a long donwturn and slow slide down to where we would learn to live with less.
I said Iraq would be a quagmire and last for years cost trillions and thousands of lives when others said 6 months and then just andother 6 months, just another 6 months, etc.
I agreed with Ross about the big sucking sound of NAFTA.
I predicted that globalization and free trade would lower the living standard for the majority of Americans.

so far I have beat the experts, I will settle for that and wait to be vindicated by the future if necessary.

please stop clowning and present your most substantive argument in support of liberaism.

eh?

since when do common sense predictions equate to liberalism?

my gawd you people are like chinese water tourture applying the term to anything you can't grasp

 

[Brutus]

;

since when do common sense predictions equate to liberalism?

my gawd you people are like chinese water tourture applying the term to anything you can't grasp[/SIZE][/COLOR]

the issue of world history and in the voting booth is freedom versus government. Where do you stand and why? If you can't talk about it why be on a political forum?