Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.For the still confused:
Tariffs are a tax on imports. They are paid by U.S.-registered firms to U.S. customs for the goods they import into the United States.
Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers - manufacturers and consumers in the United States - by raising their prices.
Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?
So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.For the still confused:
Tariffs are a tax on imports. They are paid by U.S.-registered firms to U.S. customs for the goods they import into the United States.
Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers - manufacturers and consumers in the United States - by raising their prices.
Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?
So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
This chart from Goldman Sachs shows tariffs are raising prices for consumers and it could get worseFor the still confused:
Tariffs are a tax on imports. They are paid by U.S.-registered firms to U.S. customs for the goods they import into the United States.
Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers - manufacturers and consumers in the United States - by raising their prices.
Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?
So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
I haven't seen a benefit....A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.For the still confused:
Tariffs are a tax on imports. They are paid by U.S.-registered firms to U.S. customs for the goods they import into the United States.
Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers - manufacturers and consumers in the United States - by raising their prices.
Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?
So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
What is wrong with you people? You can't possibly be this ignorant.
We have NOT felt a significant impact from the tariffs. In short, we have much to gain and haven't lost much if anything, particularly considering the terrible world economy.
INFLATION IS VERY LOW. The benefits of these tariffs have far outweighed any negative impact.
I am beginning to see why the average Democrat makes less money.
There is no question the tariffs have hurt farmers, hence the bailout.A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.For the still confused:
Tariffs are a tax on imports. They are paid by U.S.-registered firms to U.S. customs for the goods they import into the United States.
Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers - manufacturers and consumers in the United States - by raising their prices.
Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?
So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
You sir are full of shit. If you cared so much about farmers, you would be on the phone with your Congressman, pleading with him or her to pass the USMCA.
Your feigned crocodile tears about "muh farners" is a thinly-veiled sham that anyone can see through
I haven't seen a benefit....A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.For the still confused:
Tariffs are a tax on imports. They are paid by U.S.-registered firms to U.S. customs for the goods they import into the United States.
Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers - manufacturers and consumers in the United States - by raising their prices.
Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?
So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
What is wrong with you people? You can't possibly be this ignorant.
We have NOT felt a significant impact from the tariffs. In short, we have much to gain and haven't lost much if anything, particularly considering the terrible world economy.
INFLATION IS VERY LOW. The benefits of these tariffs have far outweighed any negative impact.
I am beginning to see why the average Democrat makes less money.
Of course we haven't seen a benefit. All it has done is tax us.I haven't seen a benefit....A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.For the still confused:
Tariffs are a tax on imports. They are paid by U.S.-registered firms to U.S. customs for the goods they import into the United States.
Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers - manufacturers and consumers in the United States - by raising their prices.
Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or U.S. customers and companies?
So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
What is wrong with you people? You can't possibly be this ignorant.
We have NOT felt a significant impact from the tariffs. In short, we have much to gain and haven't lost much if anything, particularly considering the terrible world economy.
INFLATION IS VERY LOW. The benefits of these tariffs have far outweighed any negative impact.
I am beginning to see why the average Democrat makes less money.
I woudln't say anyone as seen a beneift a of yet. The end game is a huge benefit as the trade deficit with China will decrease.
I don't doubt that some prices have risen, however, not by enough or for as many products to significantly affect inflation, which was the entire point.
BTW, I thought Democrats believed in higher taxes anyway? If the Democrats theory is corrcect, then why not raises tariiffs even more on more goods, after all, it is just a tax on a corporation. Corporations don't pass along those higher taxes to consumers do they? Oh yeah, they do. Trump decreased corporate taxes overall to offset any extra that may be passed along to the consumers by the tarriffs. Very smart as the the overal tax cuts far outwiegh any negative impacts from the tariffs. He also did this at a time when the US economy can withstand any negative impact, which it has. Even if the farmers are bailed out with a portion of the tariff money, the overall negative affects are very minimal given the long term gain...unless a spineless Democrat comes into office and turns belly up.
Democrats should be thrilled with tariffs, after all, as you have stated, it is a tax. It appears the only reason they don't like them is because not ENOUGH companies are being tariffed, inflation is not sky high and that of course Trump is winning. The Democrats philosophy appears to be to raise taxes every company(and virtually every person) in the country, enforce a higher min. wage(which companies pass along to consumers) and allow China to keep their trade deficit and intellectual property theft. So I ask a simple question. How does this make any economic sense whatsoever?
You need to provide some links. We have done quite well.You will have to share what and who promised it.You didn't make any specific claim. We have done very well with free trade. Very low unemployment, lots of wealth, largest economy in the world....That is nice.
My point about the results of the Free Trade policy not being what was promised, still stands.
I'm not sure why you choose to "reply", but not address my point, in any fashion.
That was not what we were promised, was it? We were promised more, and more specifically.
You don't recall all the talk about how American companies would learn to become more productive and innovative and that workers would either be rehired or retrained for new and exciting high tech jobs, and things would return to a new and better "normal" of rising wages for all?
Of course we haven't seen a benefit. All it has done is tax us.I haven't seen a benefit....A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.So if they are passing it along to us, why is inflation so low? Even if they are passing it along, the impact is minimal and very well worth the "pain".
You guys are just plain short-sighted.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
What is wrong with you people? You can't possibly be this ignorant.
We have NOT felt a significant impact from the tariffs. In short, we have much to gain and haven't lost much if anything, particularly considering the terrible world economy.
INFLATION IS VERY LOW. The benefits of these tariffs have far outweighed any negative impact.
I am beginning to see why the average Democrat makes less money.
I woudln't say anyone as seen a beneift a of yet. The end game is a huge benefit as the trade deficit with China will decrease.
I don't doubt that some prices have risen, however, not by enough or for as many products to significantly affect inflation, which was the entire point.
BTW, I thought Democrats believed in higher taxes anyway? If the Democrats theory is corrcect, then why not raises tariiffs even more on more goods, after all, it is just a tax on a corporation. Corporations don't pass along those higher taxes to consumers do they? Oh yeah, they do. Trump decreased corporate taxes overall to offset any extra that may be passed along to the consumers by the tarriffs. Very smart as the the overal tax cuts far outwiegh any negative impacts from the tariffs. He also did this at a time when the US economy can withstand any negative impact, which it has. Even if the farmers are bailed out with a portion of the tariff money, the overall negative affects are very minimal given the long term gain...unless a spineless Democrat comes into office and turns belly up.
Democrats should be thrilled with tariffs, after all, as you have stated, it is a tax. It appears the only reason they don't like them is because not ENOUGH companies are being tariffed, inflation is not sky high and that of course Trump is winning. The Democrats philosophy appears to be to raise taxes every company(and virtually every person) in the country, enforce a higher min. wage(which companies pass along to consumers) and allow China to keep their trade deficit and intellectual property theft. So I ask a simple question. How does this make any economic sense whatsoever?
Yes tariffs were historically a very liberal policy. And that brings us back to the OP, how did trump make conservatives so liberal? Trump has given us trillion dollar deficits, not very small government....
Why do we want to decrease the trade deficit? We have been robbing them. Receiving real products and services and only sending them paper:
Milton Friedman: The Way We Talk about Trade Confuses the Issue | Mark J. Perry
As Milton Friedman explained back in the 1970s (italics added):
In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports, and if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad, we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, with automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use.
The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is a cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things so that we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.
This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get fewer coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.
Bottom Line: If you correct Trump’s “upside-down thinking” and apply Friedman’s insight that the gain from trade with China is what we import (not export), America enjoyed a large $375 billion annual “stuff surplus” or net inflow of goods from China last year. That is an outcome that should be celebrated, not condemned! Contrary to Trump’s upside-down thinking about trade and speaking in his distorted language, it’s actually the US that has perpetrated the “greatest theft of merchandise in the history of the world” – totaling to more than $3 trillion in accumulated “stuff surpluses” over the last decade representing the amount of goods the US has “stolen” from the Chinese people since 2008!
Yes you think it is better to trade 4 lawn mowers and get 1 weed eater in return. Friedman is saying it’s better to get 10 weed eaters for every lawn mower traded. Seems pretty common sense to me. Do you insist on paying more for items at the store too?Of course we haven't seen a benefit. All it has done is tax us.I haven't seen a benefit....A flat Dow since the tariff war started. Farmers committing suicide, and a farm bailout twice the size of the auto bailout the tard herd ripped into Obama for, a declining ISM index now in negative territory, GDP growth nosediving.
Minimal impact, eh?
Wow, your propagandists are really good at keeping you liberals in the dark!
What is wrong with you people? You can't possibly be this ignorant.
We have NOT felt a significant impact from the tariffs. In short, we have much to gain and haven't lost much if anything, particularly considering the terrible world economy.
INFLATION IS VERY LOW. The benefits of these tariffs have far outweighed any negative impact.
I am beginning to see why the average Democrat makes less money.
I woudln't say anyone as seen a beneift a of yet. The end game is a huge benefit as the trade deficit with China will decrease.
I don't doubt that some prices have risen, however, not by enough or for as many products to significantly affect inflation, which was the entire point.
BTW, I thought Democrats believed in higher taxes anyway? If the Democrats theory is corrcect, then why not raises tariiffs even more on more goods, after all, it is just a tax on a corporation. Corporations don't pass along those higher taxes to consumers do they? Oh yeah, they do. Trump decreased corporate taxes overall to offset any extra that may be passed along to the consumers by the tarriffs. Very smart as the the overal tax cuts far outwiegh any negative impacts from the tariffs. He also did this at a time when the US economy can withstand any negative impact, which it has. Even if the farmers are bailed out with a portion of the tariff money, the overall negative affects are very minimal given the long term gain...unless a spineless Democrat comes into office and turns belly up.
Democrats should be thrilled with tariffs, after all, as you have stated, it is a tax. It appears the only reason they don't like them is because not ENOUGH companies are being tariffed, inflation is not sky high and that of course Trump is winning. The Democrats philosophy appears to be to raise taxes every company(and virtually every person) in the country, enforce a higher min. wage(which companies pass along to consumers) and allow China to keep their trade deficit and intellectual property theft. So I ask a simple question. How does this make any economic sense whatsoever?
Yes tariffs were historically a very liberal policy. And that brings us back to the OP, how did trump make conservatives so liberal? Trump has given us trillion dollar deficits, not very small government....
Why do we want to decrease the trade deficit? We have been robbing them. Receiving real products and services and only sending them paper:
Milton Friedman: The Way We Talk about Trade Confuses the Issue | Mark J. Perry
As Milton Friedman explained back in the 1970s (italics added):
In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports, and if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad, we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, with automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use.
The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is a cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things so that we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.
This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get fewer coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.
Bottom Line: If you correct Trump’s “upside-down thinking” and apply Friedman’s insight that the gain from trade with China is what we import (not export), America enjoyed a large $375 billion annual “stuff surplus” or net inflow of goods from China last year. That is an outcome that should be celebrated, not condemned! Contrary to Trump’s upside-down thinking about trade and speaking in his distorted language, it’s actually the US that has perpetrated the “greatest theft of merchandise in the history of the world” – totaling to more than $3 trillion in accumulated “stuff surpluses” over the last decade representing the amount of goods the US has “stolen” from the Chinese people since 2008!
This is all based on the assumption that countries are exporting items they need. To use his analogy about a household, is it better for me to sell 4 of my 5 lawn mowers(export) so that I can buy a weed eater(import) and still have some money left over or is it better to keep my surplus lawn mowers and pay out of pocket for the weed eater? This is not applicable in the US at this time.
Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.You need to provide some links. We have done quite well.You will have to share what and who promised it.You didn't make any specific claim. We have done very well with free trade. Very low unemployment, lots of wealth, largest economy in the world....
That was not what we were promised, was it? We were promised more, and more specifically.
You don't recall all the talk about how American companies would learn to become more productive and innovative and that workers would either be rehired or retrained for new and exciting high tech jobs, and things would return to a new and better "normal" of rising wages for all?
Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.You need to provide some links. We have done quite well.You will have to share what and who promised it.That was not what we were promised, was it? We were promised more, and more specifically.
You don't recall all the talk about how American companies would learn to become more productive and innovative and that workers would either be rehired or retrained for new and exciting high tech jobs, and things would return to a new and better "normal" of rising wages for all?
Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Just state your claim clearly and support with a link. So far your claim isn’t even clear.Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.You need to provide some links. We have done quite well.You will have to share what and who promised it.
You don't recall all the talk about how American companies would learn to become more productive and innovative and that workers would either be rehired or retrained for new and exciting high tech jobs, and things would return to a new and better "normal" of rising wages for all?
Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Who would you accept as an Authority on what promises were made by in the 70s, or 80s on this issue?
Just state your claim clearly and support with a link. So far your claim isn’t even clear.Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.You need to provide some links. We have done quite well.You don't recall all the talk about how American companies would learn to become more productive and innovative and that workers would either be rehired or retrained for new and exciting high tech jobs, and things would return to a new and better "normal" of rising wages for all?
Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Who would you accept as an Authority on what promises were made by in the 70s, or 80s on this issue?
Actually I’m not sure what you are claiming. You said something didn’t happen. That’s not very clear.Just state your claim clearly and support with a link. So far your claim isn’t even clear.Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.You need to provide some links. We have done quite well.
Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Who would you accept as an Authority on what promises were made by in the 70s, or 80s on this issue?
My claim was very clear. Before I go and spend time looking for quotes from politicians or economists from 40 years ago, online, I just wanted to have an idea of whom you would not just dismiss.
You asked for a link, you must have some idea of what you would accept as a valid.
Maybe this will help you?Just state your claim clearly and support with a link. So far your claim isn’t even clear.Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.You need to provide some links. We have done quite well.
Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Who would you accept as an Authority on what promises were made by in the 70s, or 80s on this issue?
My claim was very clear. Before I go and spend time looking for quotes from politicians or economists from 40 years ago, online, I just wanted to have an idea of whom you would not just dismiss.
You asked for a link, you must have some idea of what you would accept as a valid.
Actually I’m not sure what you are claiming. You said something didn’t happen. That’s not very clear.Just state your claim clearly and support with a link. So far your claim isn’t even clear.Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Who would you accept as an Authority on what promises were made by in the 70s, or 80s on this issue?
My claim was very clear. Before I go and spend time looking for quotes from politicians or economists from 40 years ago, online, I just wanted to have an idea of whom you would not just dismiss.
You asked for a link, you must have some idea of what you would accept as a valid.
Maybe this will help you?Just state your claim clearly and support with a link. So far your claim isn’t even clear.Supporting your claim which so far isn’t clear.Links? FOr what? What do you not understand about what I just said? Seems like you are just stalling and dodging.
Who would you accept as an Authority on what promises were made by in the 70s, or 80s on this issue?
My claim was very clear. Before I go and spend time looking for quotes from politicians or economists from 40 years ago, online, I just wanted to have an idea of whom you would not just dismiss.
You asked for a link, you must have some idea of what you would accept as a valid.
Is China Actually Stealing American Jobs and Wealth?
To be sure, China and the United States are not without their troubles. Both countries are showing stubborn growth in their carbon footprints and military spending, to name just two disturbing trends. But the data of the last 25 years portray U.S.-China commerce as the most synergistic bi-lateral relationship in world history, bringing peace along with mutual prosperity.
Yes you think it is better to trade 4 lawn mowers and get 1 weed eater in return. Friedman is saying it’s better to get 10 weed eaters for every lawn mower traded. Seems pretty common sense to me. Do you insist on paying more for items at the store too?Of course we haven't seen a benefit. All it has done is tax us.I haven't seen a benefit....What is wrong with you people? You can't possibly be this ignorant.
We have NOT felt a significant impact from the tariffs. In short, we have much to gain and haven't lost much if anything, particularly considering the terrible world economy.
INFLATION IS VERY LOW. The benefits of these tariffs have far outweighed any negative impact.
I am beginning to see why the average Democrat makes less money.
I woudln't say anyone as seen a beneift a of yet. The end game is a huge benefit as the trade deficit with China will decrease.
I don't doubt that some prices have risen, however, not by enough or for as many products to significantly affect inflation, which was the entire point.
BTW, I thought Democrats believed in higher taxes anyway? If the Democrats theory is corrcect, then why not raises tariiffs even more on more goods, after all, it is just a tax on a corporation. Corporations don't pass along those higher taxes to consumers do they? Oh yeah, they do. Trump decreased corporate taxes overall to offset any extra that may be passed along to the consumers by the tarriffs. Very smart as the the overal tax cuts far outwiegh any negative impacts from the tariffs. He also did this at a time when the US economy can withstand any negative impact, which it has. Even if the farmers are bailed out with a portion of the tariff money, the overall negative affects are very minimal given the long term gain...unless a spineless Democrat comes into office and turns belly up.
Democrats should be thrilled with tariffs, after all, as you have stated, it is a tax. It appears the only reason they don't like them is because not ENOUGH companies are being tariffed, inflation is not sky high and that of course Trump is winning. The Democrats philosophy appears to be to raise taxes every company(and virtually every person) in the country, enforce a higher min. wage(which companies pass along to consumers) and allow China to keep their trade deficit and intellectual property theft. So I ask a simple question. How does this make any economic sense whatsoever?
Yes tariffs were historically a very liberal policy. And that brings us back to the OP, how did trump make conservatives so liberal? Trump has given us trillion dollar deficits, not very small government....
Why do we want to decrease the trade deficit? We have been robbing them. Receiving real products and services and only sending them paper:
Milton Friedman: The Way We Talk about Trade Confuses the Issue | Mark J. Perry
As Milton Friedman explained back in the 1970s (italics added):
In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports, and if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad, we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, with automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use.
The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is a cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things so that we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.
This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get fewer coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.
Bottom Line: If you correct Trump’s “upside-down thinking” and apply Friedman’s insight that the gain from trade with China is what we import (not export), America enjoyed a large $375 billion annual “stuff surplus” or net inflow of goods from China last year. That is an outcome that should be celebrated, not condemned! Contrary to Trump’s upside-down thinking about trade and speaking in his distorted language, it’s actually the US that has perpetrated the “greatest theft of merchandise in the history of the world” – totaling to more than $3 trillion in accumulated “stuff surpluses” over the last decade representing the amount of goods the US has “stolen” from the Chinese people since 2008!
This is all based on the assumption that countries are exporting items they need. To use his analogy about a household, is it better for me to sell 4 of my 5 lawn mowers(export) so that I can buy a weed eater(import) and still have some money left over or is it better to keep my surplus lawn mowers and pay out of pocket for the weed eater? This is not applicable in the US at this time.
