How Did Trump confuse conservatives about trade?

[Brain357]

I haven't seen a benefit....

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?

Of course we haven't seen a benefit. All it has done is tax us.

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.

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?

No, I get 1 weed eater and pocket the rest to spend on some other items that are needed. I don't need 4 extra lawnmowers. We are not exporting items we need. We are exporting items of which we already have a surplus, in return, we import items we either have a shortage of or can get cheaper. In this scenario, which is where we are, we are much more prosperous if we export more than we import. We aren't even close to that now. There is a reason China is fighting any trade deal tooth and nail and it is not just because of intellectual property theft. They are profitting off the the huge trade imbalance.

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

 

[SweetTea]

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?

Of course we haven't seen a benefit. All it has done is tax us.

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.

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?

No, I get 1 weed eater and pocket the rest to spend on some other items that are needed. I don't need 4 extra lawnmowers. We are not exporting items we need. We are exporting items of which we already have a surplus, in return, we import items we either have a shortage of or can get cheaper. In this scenario, which is where we are, we are much more prosperous if we export more than we import. We aren't even close to that now. There is a reason China is fighting any trade deal tooth and nail and it is not just because of intellectual property theft. They are profitting off the the huge trade imbalance.

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

 

[Brain357]

Of course we haven't seen a benefit. All it has done is tax us.

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.

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?

No, I get 1 weed eater and pocket the rest to spend on some other items that are needed. I don't need 4 extra lawnmowers. We are not exporting items we need. We are exporting items of which we already have a surplus, in return, we import items we either have a shortage of or can get cheaper. In this scenario, which is where we are, we are much more prosperous if we export more than we import. We aren't even close to that now. There is a reason China is fighting any trade deal tooth and nail and it is not just because of intellectual property theft. They are profitting off the the huge trade imbalance.

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

 

[SweetTea]

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.

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?

No, I get 1 weed eater and pocket the rest to spend on some other items that are needed. I don't need 4 extra lawnmowers. We are not exporting items we need. We are exporting items of which we already have a surplus, in return, we import items we either have a shortage of or can get cheaper. In this scenario, which is where we are, we are much more prosperous if we export more than we import. We aren't even close to that now. There is a reason China is fighting any trade deal tooth and nail and it is not just because of intellectual property theft. They are profitting off the the huge trade imbalance.

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brain357]

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?

No, I get 1 weed eater and pocket the rest to spend on some other items that are needed. I don't need 4 extra lawnmowers. We are not exporting items we need. We are exporting items of which we already have a surplus, in return, we import items we either have a shortage of or can get cheaper. In this scenario, which is where we are, we are much more prosperous if we export more than we import. We aren't even close to that now. There is a reason China is fighting any trade deal tooth and nail and it is not just because of intellectual property theft. They are profitting off the the huge trade imbalance.

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

 

[SweetTea]

No, I get 1 weed eater and pocket the rest to spend on some other items that are needed. I don't need 4 extra lawnmowers. We are not exporting items we need. We are exporting items of which we already have a surplus, in return, we import items we either have a shortage of or can get cheaper. In this scenario, which is where we are, we are much more prosperous if we export more than we import. We aren't even close to that now. There is a reason China is fighting any trade deal tooth and nail and it is not just because of intellectual property theft. They are profitting off the the huge trade imbalance.

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

 

[Brain357]

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

Yes he’s trying to balance us by taxing us more. I thought you said more taxes was bad?

 

[impuretrash]

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

Yes he’s trying to balance us by taxing us more. I thought you said more taxes was bad?

Trump represents a shift of priorities in the republican voting base. It's really not so hard to understand.

 

[Brain357]

So you accept less because you have a surplus? If you go into a store with $10 and your bill is $5 do you pay $10? You aren’t making sense....

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't accept Friedman's premise that:

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 goods and services we export are presumably profitable for us. Companies make money by selling them to a larger market that needs them. These companies make a profit and the government collects taxes from the corporation. China exports more than they import. Hong Kong exports a LOT more than they import. Do you think China has suffered economically from exporting more than they import? You can't possibly believe that.

Our trade deficit is high for products but we have a trade surplus with services. The deficit needs to come more in line. Not sure what you don't get about this.

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

Do you consider yourself small government? Yet you trust big gov to manipulate trade balance with taxes? Real conservatives should see the problem there.

 

[Brain357]

There is no reason to not accept the premise, it's simply a fact. Anything we export is not used in this country. What we import however is used. Why do you want to send out more than you take in? If you do that with your bank account you will soon be broke.

China does export a lot, do you think that is in any way a better place to live? It seems you are arguing we should be more like China, so what is it that's so great there? I'd much rather be here. Hong Kong has a trade deficit, and is also a much better place than China. Japan was once a huge exporter, how has that worked out? China is on borrowed time. They discovered capitalism and trade and have had a good run, but it will come to an end.

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

Yes he’s trying to balance us by taxing us more. I thought you said more taxes was bad?

Trump represents a shift of priorities in the republican voting base. It's really not so hard to understand.

Yes a shift to big government and taxes.

 

[impuretrash]

This is a hopeless conversation, but I will continue to try. We need a trade balance. If we spend more on imports than on exports our GDP decreases as does the value of the dollar. Trump is trying to balance trade, particularly with China.

I will end with this... If we both have $1000 and you buy my widget for $500 each year and I buy your widget for $100 each year, how long will it take before I have all your money?

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

Yes he’s trying to balance us by taxing us more. I thought you said more taxes was bad?

Trump represents a shift of priorities in the republican voting base. It's really not so hard to understand.

Yes a shift to big government and taxes.

The "big gubmit" meme does not resonate with young conservatives facing demographic extinction.

 

[Brain357]

Well if I'm paying you in my currency it has to come back one way or another so I never run out of money.

Here is a list of countries with the biggest trade surplus:
The 20 countries with the highest trade surplus in 2017 | Statista

Top 3 are China, Germany, and Russia. Now I've never heard anyone use strong economy and Russia together. China has had a good run, but that's more from discovering capitalism and trade. How is Germany doing?
German economy to stagnate but no recession coming: Bundesbank
Not so good.

According to you all three should be doing great.

Our economy has issues, but they aren't trade issues. We have too many near monopolies, wage collusion, corporate welfare, growing inequality....

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

Yes he’s trying to balance us by taxing us more. I thought you said more taxes was bad?

Trump represents a shift of priorities in the republican voting base. It's really not so hard to understand.

Yes a shift to big government and taxes.

The "big gubmit" meme does not resonate with young conservatives facing demographic extinction.

Yes it’s fascinating that anyone calling themselves conservatives are looking to big gov to save them.

So far it’s failing miserably for steel.

 

[impuretrash]

China's economy was humming along until the tariffs. Weird. Russia has many, many issues including a trade imbalance. Remember, I didn't say we should have a large surplus. I said we should be balanced. Germany has a very large surplus, along with huge pensions and sky high taxes. Their Socialist model is killing them as it is much of Europe.

You seem to be arguing for a trade deficit, which we currently have. I am saying we need a balance. Trump is trying to get closer to balance, though we will likely always have a deficit.

Yes he’s trying to balance us by taxing us more. I thought you said more taxes was bad?

Trump represents a shift of priorities in the republican voting base. It's really not so hard to understand.

Yes a shift to big government and taxes.

The "big gubmit" meme does not resonate with young conservatives facing demographic extinction.

Yes it’s fascinating that anyone calling themselves conservatives are looking to big gov to save them.

So far it’s failing miserably for steel.

Lol, "small govt" republican policies are largely to blame for offshoring and outsourcing and the death of US manufacturing.

 

[Brain357]

Yes he’s trying to balance us by taxing us more. I thought you said more taxes was bad?

Trump represents a shift of priorities in the republican voting base. It's really not so hard to understand.

Yes a shift to big government and taxes.

The "big gubmit" meme does not resonate with young conservatives facing demographic extinction.

Yes it’s fascinating that anyone calling themselves conservatives are looking to big gov to save them.

So far it’s failing miserably for steel.

Lol, "small govt" republican policies are largely to blame for offshoring and outsourcing and the death of US manufacturing.

Well they did want to kill unions. That war made buying foreign far more acceptable. There are a lot of industries we can’t be competitive in now. We have lots of jobs and wealth, we just need more power for workers.