Obama risks trade war with China

[Unkotare]

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who [sic]?

A great many people all along the process.

And how have American workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas benefited?

That was a sad little appeal to emotion. Why not ask how many American workers who have jobs associated with shipping, receiving, book keeping, transportation or any of the countless jobs related to both importing and exporting as well as managing and servicing various aspects of the companies involved have benefited? You lefties don't want to come to grips with basic economics but you are also unwilling to make it more attractive for companies to do business in the US, so you just fantasize about going back in time to some imaginary 19th century idyl where the US was a big sealed-off commune. Your silly fantasy doesn't take into account that such a reality never actually existed and that trying to turn back the hands of global trade would utterly devastate the US economy (yes, much more than the current or any other cirisis you can recall) and hurt those you would champion most of all. Economies, like cultures and languages, are not static and would decay if forced to be. Adjusting to economic changes has always been painful and it always will be. Isolationism is like responding to growing pains by committing suicide. Doesn't make any sense. Did I say 'growing' pains? Yes, I did. I provided you with real facts about free trade. You have provided empty appeals to emotion.

 

[Old_Liberal]

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who [sic]?

A great many people all along the process.

And how have American workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas benefited?

No benefit. No surprise. But what the off shoring of jobs has done is to explode the social safety nets. Such is the cost for exessive capitalistic greed and the lust for dirt cheap labor from perfect boot trampled communist workers.

And folks this is what happens when you turn capitalists loose to do as they will with no social responsibility. It will inevitably create two classes again, which by the way is the history of mankind. The rich and the poor. The age old class war in which the elites win.

Corporate globalization, free trade is nothing more than a way to send more wealth to the top. It is not condusive to creating middle classes, especially large ones.

 

[Unkotare]

Communist China will never run a trade deficit with America. You know why? Because corporate greed does not create their economic policy. They fashion their policy to benefit the communist state, as America used to construct agreements to benefit this nation, instead of a few special interests.

Figures show that other countries hold 4.7 TRILLION dollars worth of US Treasury securities, of which China holds 1.1 TRILLION.

If the US economic engine can't sustain servicing this level of debt (an issue the Republicans were focusing attention on last year in Congress) then a global economic meltdown could occur, which would drag China down with it.

What would be the consequences to China if its holdings of US Government securities were devalued by 50%?

The inevitable meltdown. By the way, china is buying up a very large quanity of gold. Tons and tons of it. But they do look to the future, as orientals tend to do.

And now you throw in racial stereotypes? Way to make yourself look like even more of a fucking asshole, champ.

 

[expat_panama]

...other countries hold 4.7 TRILLION dollars worth of US Treasury securities, of which China holds 1.1 TRILLION. If the US economic engine can't sustain servicing this level of debt...

Right now (according to the US Treasury) total public debt is $10,572,374,387,699.06, and the interest we're paying this year is $227,054,000,000. Sounds like a lot of debt and a lot of interest but all rhetoric aside our interest payments just aren't that big a percentage of the tax revenue we've been pulling in:

--it's about ten percent, little more than half what it was before Gingrinh et al took over the House and finally forced Clinton into a budget surplus.

 

[edthecynic]

A great many people all along the process.

To benefit from free trade you must first understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, and produce goods and trade goods accordingly.

To benefit from free trade one needs a large poor workforce that will work for much less than the nation that hold the largest consumer market on earth.

The US will never run trade surpluses with a nation like communist china. Yet in our past we aimed for surpluses. At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in trade. We lost. Yet we stay the course only because of the power of special interests upon policy.

Do you know of any examples where the workers prospered in an economic model based upon consumption, but in which those workers did not make what was consumed? In the entire history of the world? If so, I want to see how they could pull off the impossible. A

You obviously do not understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, because all who follow it in their trade policies WIN!!!!

The Law has to do with the relative efficiency with which goods are produced within a country. A country can benefit from free trade even if the country can produce every product better than the trading partner it is trading with as long as there are some products it can produce more efficiently than others. The country produces what is most efficient for it to produce and then trades those goods for the others. The other country produces those goods the the first country produces less efficiently and trades them for the first country's most efficiently produced goods, and both countries benefit and neither country is in an unfavorable trade position.

Countries only go wrong when they try to produce everything themselves rather than obey the Law of Comparative Advantage.

 

[expat_panama]

...The wealth in america has been increased largely by the top earners...

So we agree that America's more wealthy, but it's just that you're not happy about it.

 

[editec]

Obama risks trade war with China

China would lose.

 

[Old_Liberal]

...The wealth in america has been increased largely by the top earners...

So we agree that America's more wealthy, but it's just that you're not happy about it.

Yes there has been a greater move of income upward to the rich. Overall america is wealthier, but not the average people who are in the majority in this nation. This is not good for a democratic republic, and you will find many who think the same way.

Too bad so few cons are of the Pat Buchanan variety. He is the only con that has a fucking brain in regards to the deindustrialization of america. And he also says this disaster lies on the backs of his party, the repubs, Clinton and the Bush family. Pat says the repubs don't "get it".
I would not be as charitable.

 

[Old_Liberal]

Figures show that other countries hold 4.7 TRILLION dollars worth of US Treasury securities, of which China holds 1.1 TRILLION.

If the US economic engine can't sustain servicing this level of debt (an issue the Republicans were focusing attention on last year in Congress) then a global economic meltdown could occur, which would drag China down with it.

What would be the consequences to China if its holdings of US Government securities were devalued by 50%?

The inevitable meltdown. By the way, china is buying up a very large quanity of gold. Tons and tons of it. But they do look to the future, as orientals tend to do.

And now you throw in racial stereotypes? Way to make yourself look like even more of a fucking asshole, champ.

Anyone with a fucking brain knows how many of the orientals are. It is called observation. Which you have something against, which explains your lunacy. Go get an education. You might learn something.

By the way the so called stereotype has been considered by our intelligence. Why? Because cultures tend to act in certain ways, and there are differences from culture to culture. But you are too stupid to be aware of such.

We have known the chinese and others tend to look long term and we have known there for a very long time. But you did not, of course. So you get pissed off at your stupidity and attack someone who has a clue what in the hell is going on. It gets tiresome.

 

[Old_Liberal]

To benefit from free trade you must first understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, and produce goods and trade goods accordingly.

To benefit from free trade one needs a large poor workforce that will work for much less than the nation that hold the largest consumer market on earth.

The US will never run trade surpluses with a nation like communist china. Yet in our past we aimed for surpluses. At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in trade. We lost. Yet we stay the course only because of the power of special interests upon policy.

Do you know of any examples where the workers prospered in an economic model based upon consumption, but in which those workers did not make what was consumed? In the entire history of the world? If so, I want to see how they could pull off the impossible. A

You obviously do not understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, because all who follow it in their trade policies WIN!!!!

The Law has to do with the relative efficiency with which goods are produced within a country. A country can benefit from free trade even if the country can produce every product better than the trading partner it is trading with as long as there are some products it can produce more efficiently than others. The country produces what is most efficient for it to produce and then trades those goods for the others. The other country produces those goods the the first country produces less efficiently and trades them for the first country's most efficiently produced goods, and both countries benefit and neither country is in an unfavorable trade position.

Countries only go wrong when they try to produce everything themselves rather than obey the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Let us be real, and throw in the fact that america was deindustrialized in the process. And what happens when there is no place for the displaced workers in the new economy? And if you can make work, would it ever feature the standard of living that industry provided?

There is this thing called free trade, and there is something called offshoring.

Comparitive advantage also has its critiques, and one lies in which segment of society benefits over time. Hint, it ain't average people, when the human element is injected, which always has to be injected.

To treat economics like a hard science with laws is stupidity. Oh, you think the law of gravity and the law of compartive advantage are both equal in outcomes? In real life? Or is this an abstract deal?

Then you have america who was not restricting access to market, but china does restrict access to their market. Of course we don't have a free trade agreement with china. And doesn't the law of CA need actual free trade to work it wonders? Does free trade actually exist, or is it an ideal?

If free trade is so fucking great, WHY is it that nations still indulge in some degree of protectionism. And that has gone on for my entire life of 60 odd years. We make trade agreeements with other nations, and they immidiately start cheating by protecting. Hmmm. Looks like no one believes that the law you spoke of actually is beneficial.

 

[edthecynic]

To benefit from free trade one needs a large poor workforce that will work for much less than the nation that hold the largest consumer market on earth.

The US will never run trade surpluses with a nation like communist china. Yet in our past we aimed for surpluses. At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in trade. We lost. Yet we stay the course only because of the power of special interests upon policy.

Do you know of any examples where the workers prospered in an economic model based upon consumption, but in which those workers did not make what was consumed? In the entire history of the world? If so, I want to see how they could pull off the impossible. A

You obviously do not understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, because all who follow it in their trade policies WIN!!!!

The Law has to do with the relative efficiency with which goods are produced within a country. A country can benefit from free trade even if the country can produce every product better than the trading partner it is trading with as long as there are some products it can produce more efficiently than others. The country produces what is most efficient for it to produce and then trades those goods for the others. The other country produces those goods the the first country produces less efficiently and trades them for the first country's most efficiently produced goods, and both countries benefit and neither country is in an unfavorable trade position.

Countries only go wrong when they try to produce everything themselves rather than obey the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Let us be real, and throw in the fact that america was deindustrialized in the process. And what happens when there is no place for the displaced workers in the new economy? And if you can make work, would it ever feature the standard of living that industry provided?

There is this thing called free trade, and there is something called offshoring.

Comparitive advantage also has its critiques, and one lies in which segment of society benefits over time. Hint, it ain't average people, when the human element is injected, which always has to be injected.

To treat economics like a hard science with laws is stupidity. Oh, you think the law of gravity and the law of compartive advantage are both equal in outcomes? In real life? Or is this an abstract deal?

Then you have america who was not restricting access to market, but china does restrict access to their market. Of course we don't have a free trade agreement with china. And doesn't the law of CA need actual free trade to work it wonders? Does free trade actually exist, or is it an ideal?

If free trade is so fucking great, WHY is it that nations still indulge in some degree of protectionism. And that has gone on for my entire life of 60 odd years. We make trade agreeements with other nations, and they immidiately start cheating by protecting. Hmmm. Looks like no one believes that the law you spoke of actually is beneficial.

The problem of displaced workers is the failure of government to provide retraining, it seems one Party is anti education and they block any spending on retraining, don't blame the Law of Comparative Advantage for that.

When properly expressed, the Law of Comparative Advantage is unassailable. It is a proven Law like any Law of science.

No the LoCA does not require free trade to provide a benefit to a country that follows it's basic principle and produce what is most efficient and trade for what it produces less efficiently. It is the country that imposes tariffs that screws itself. Nations indulge in protectionism because they are stupid!

Here is a great little snippet on the topic:

Smith's Law, Free Trade, and Free Immigration
Another factor in abridging free trade, however, is the "retaliatory" tariff, which raises barriers against the trade of foreign nations just because they use protective tariffs themselves. From this point of view, free trade is seen as good, but practicing it against a non-free trading partner puts one at a disadvantage. This is so appealing an argument that it seems to have been accepted by Thomas Jefferson and even by Adam Smith himself. However, it makes the same mistake as all other "feudal tenure" arguments. If "protective" tariffs actually damage one's own consumers, then such a tariff is a self-inflicted wound. And then -- as has been pointed out by the economist Walter Williams -- a "retaliatory" tariff means that one's own nation "retaliates" against another one damaging its consumers by damaging one's own consumers in turn. Thus, we say, "You've hurt yourself, so in retaliation I'm going to hurt myself also." In ordinary life this would be deeply idiotic behavior.

 

[expat_panama]

...Overall america is wealthier, but not the average people who are in the majority in this nation. This is not good...

Some people say that and others don't.

When beliefs about income distribution are taken on faith then no amount of info can ever change those beliefs. My buying and selling things goes a lot better when I look hard at peoples incomes before deciding what those incomes are. Let me know if you've gotten into hard numbers on different income levels over the past twenty years --I'm always interested. If you haven't and you'd like to see what I've been using I'd be happy to share.

 

[Unkotare]

The inevitable meltdown. By the way, china is buying up a very large quanity of gold. Tons and tons of it. But they do look to the future, as orientals tend to do.

And now you throw in racial stereotypes? Way to make yourself look like even more of a fucking asshole, champ.

Anyone with a fucking brain knows how many of the orientals are. .

You're just another lefty fucking racist. Fuck you, scumbag.

 

[Unkotare]

Let us be real, and throw in the fact that america was deindustrialized in the process. .

America hasn't been "deindustrialized," you hysterical fool.

 

[Old_Liberal]

You obviously do not understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, because all who follow it in their trade policies WIN!!!!

The Law has to do with the relative efficiency with which goods are produced within a country. A country can benefit from free trade even if the country can produce every product better than the trading partner it is trading with as long as there are some products it can produce more efficiently than others. The country produces what is most efficient for it to produce and then trades those goods for the others. The other country produces those goods the the first country produces less efficiently and trades them for the first country's most efficiently produced goods, and both countries benefit and neither country is in an unfavorable trade position.

Countries only go wrong when they try to produce everything themselves rather than obey the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Let us be real, and throw in the fact that america was deindustrialized in the process. And what happens when there is no place for the displaced workers in the new economy? And if you can make work, would it ever feature the standard of living that industry provided?

There is this thing called free trade, and there is something called offshoring.

Comparitive advantage also has its critiques, and one lies in which segment of society benefits over time. Hint, it ain't average people, when the human element is injected, which always has to be injected.

To treat economics like a hard science with laws is stupidity. Oh, you think the law of gravity and the law of compartive advantage are both equal in outcomes? In real life? Or is this an abstract deal?

Then you have america who was not restricting access to market, but china does restrict access to their market. Of course we don't have a free trade agreement with china. And doesn't the law of CA need actual free trade to work it wonders? Does free trade actually exist, or is it an ideal?

If free trade is so fucking great, WHY is it that nations still indulge in some degree of protectionism. And that has gone on for my entire life of 60 odd years. We make trade agreeements with other nations, and they immidiately start cheating by protecting. Hmmm. Looks like no one believes that the law you spoke of actually is beneficial.

The problem of displaced workers is the failure of government to provide retraining, it seems one Party is anti education and they block any spending on retraining, don't blame the Law of Comparative Advantage for that.

When properly expressed, the Law of Comparative Advantage is unassailable. It is a proven Law like any Law of science.

No the LoCA does not require free trade to provide a benefit to a country that follows it's basic principle and produce what is most efficient and trade for what it produces less efficiently. It is the country that imposes tariffs that screws itself. Nations indulge in protectionism because they are stupid!

Here is a great little snippet on the topic:

Smith's Law, Free Trade, and Free Immigration
Another factor in abridging free trade, however, is the "retaliatory" tariff, which raises barriers against the trade of foreign nations just because they use protective tariffs themselves. From this point of view, free trade is seen as good, but practicing it against a non-free trading partner puts one at a disadvantage. This is so appealing an argument that it seems to have been accepted by Thomas Jefferson and even by Adam Smith himself. However, it makes the same mistake as all other "feudal tenure" arguments. If "protective" tariffs actually damage one's own consumers, then such a tariff is a self-inflicted wound. And then -- as has been pointed out by the economist Walter Williams -- a "retaliatory" tariff means that one's own nation "retaliates" against another one damaging its consumers by damaging one's own consumers in turn. Thus, we say, "You've hurt yourself, so in retaliation I'm going to hurt myself also." In ordinary life this would be deeply idiotic behavior.

No the problem is the free trade and special trade agreements that sent consumer good production to cheap labor. In an economy that is based upon consumption. That sir, is fucking insanity, and what it yields is clearly visible today in this nation.

But please, give me a nation who's economy is consumption based, yet off shores to cheap labor 99 per cent of consumer good production, that maintained the large middle class it had prior to the deindustrialization. I just need one, with enough years to see trends.

I can see what it has done to america, her middle class, her workers. This entire idea of a new economy has one major flaw. It ASSUMES that americans, enough of them, will be able to attend a college, to get degrees in the fields that are paying living wages. This idea of born of ignorance, as to what average americans are capable of when it comes to education. It just isn't politically correct to admit that all people are not capable of more advanced education. We used to know this. But we got real stupid as ideology became more important than people.

There is a basic fact of capitalism that everyone ignores. Capitalism can max out the wealth of the few by cheap labor rates, OR, it can create a large middle class with owners NOT maxing out their wealth. But capitalism will not max out the wealth of the few, and create large middle classes simultaneously. It is an either or, if labor is considered.

This nation under democratic leadership post ww2 chose to create a large middle class, with the use of trade and economic policy. But this of course did not allow owners to max out wealth, because the labor rates required to create large middle classes, negates owners maxing out profits.

The new economic model created by special interests and pubs, sought to reverse the model that created the middle. For one reason. That owners might max out profits and wealth. And of course, they did it.

The current model is courtesy of the pubs, the cons, returning to power after decades of being relegated to the minority. It is not coincidental that the middle is shrinking and we have more poor, with greater social saftety net spending, greater debt. This is what the cons have given us. Yet anyone back in the 50's or 60's could have told you what the cons would do, if given the chance. It does not surprise the old geezers like me who lived under the old middle class creating model. We knew the pubs were the party of the rich, the elites. Average americans simply forgot what their parents knew as fact.

 

[Old_Liberal]

Let us be real, and throw in the fact that america was deindustrialized in the process. .

America hasn't been "deindustrialized," you hysterical fool.

On behalf of the fool...
It most certainly has when it comes to consumer good manufacturing. Or have you noticed that? Yet we have a consumption based economy! Who is the fool?

We have lost so much industry, that if we had to fight a large scale war such as ww2, we could not produce the goods needed to win the war. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. I am surrounded by idiots. Who have lost common sense, and live in theory, in ideals,in La La Land.

 

[Flopper]

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who [sic]?

A great many people all along the process.

To benefit from free trade you must first understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, and produce goods and trade goods accordingly.

I'm pretty familiar with Law of Comparative Advantage, but there is lot more to the problem than what's in the economic textbooks.

If Florida can produce the best and cheapest Oranges and Mexico can produce the best and cheapest tomatoes then the absence of trade barriers will allow the Florida orange growers and the Mexican Tomato growers to market their product world wide providing the best products to consumers. So with free trade, industries in each country can produce what they produce best. Consumers get better products, producers can make more money, and government collects more taxes. Everybody prospers. Well, not quite.

Each country must adjust which the US has not been able to do. The Florida tomatoes pickers must get jobs picking oranges of something else. Well, that's not a great deal of adjustment but the same can not be said for other industries. For example, when the TV manufacturing in 80's and 90's moved overseas, workers moved to other electronic manufacturing but slowly almost every electronic manufacturer in the country moved their operations abroad. So these workers were told they must retrain and find jobs in other similar industries but those industries were doing just what the electronics manufactures were doing. So the workers were told they should get college degrees, become healthcare professionals, engineers, and scientist. The problem of course is that retraining cost big bucks and many, particular older workers didn't have either the funds or the education to pursue such a course. This story is repeated over and over from textiles, to auto parts, to chemical manufacturing.

The bottom line is that free trade has been a disaster for millions of middle income workers, wonderful for consumers, and a bonanza for Wall Street and investors.

Whoever thought US workers would prosper in a free trade environment were nuts. America workers can not compete against labor in countries that pay a dollar an hour for labor with no benefits and little regulations. Americans were sold a bill of goods. We were told the ingenuity, education, and technology in foreign nations would never match the US. American jobs were safe That has certainly proved to be false.

The answer lies not in free trade but rather smarter trade treaties, huge investments in education, infrastructure, and technology. In many countries, government pumps large sums in the building of plants, research, and development giving their industries huge advantages over US industries. The US government has done little to prevent the illegal actives of China and other nations in dumping products on the US market to drive out completion and manipulations in currency market. In other words, we got to be smarter in dealing with these nations which is pretty hard when 40% of the largest US corporations are foreign owned.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm pretty familiar with Law of Comparative Advantage, but there is lot more to the problem than what's in the economic textbooks.

.

there is no more there is just the golden rule:

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

 

[Flopper]

I'm pretty familiar with Law of Comparative Advantage, but there is lot more to the problem than what's in the economic textbooks.

.

there is no more there is just the golden rule:

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

It's the cost of labor that has driven American manufacturing abroad. Conservatives seem to believe the answer is to drive down those costs, by destroying the unions, minimum wage, and regulations that protect workers and the community.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's the cost of labor that has driven American manufacturing abroad. Conservatives seem to believe the answer is to drive down those costs, by destroying the unions, minimum wage, and regulations that protect workers and the community.

send 11 million illegals home, destroy the liberal unions to bring back another 30 million jobs and you'll have trememdous upward pressure on wages. Balance the Budget so the Japanese and Chinese have to buy our products and not our debt and you'll have trememdous upward pressure on wages.

End the liberal taxes that make it profitable to ships jobs offshore and you'll have tremendous upward pressure on wages!! These are points above the liberal IQ I'm afraid. Sorry!!