So the president is now a horse racing expert

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

With the money he obtained from you through your loss of income. It would be a poor analogy, only if the foreign buyer is not buying assets. Since they are buying assets Class made a good analogy.

What loss of income? If I can buy the things I want or need cheaper by buying imports, my real income went up. I have more purchasing power than if I am restricted to domestic goods. I can buy more stuff.

The other part you left out of the equation is the foreign investor is also using your money to build infrastructure in his country. The roads, factories, buildings stay in the foreign country.

Why do I care what they do with my money if they earned it? If Americans want my money, they can earn it.

If the scenario you are pushing is true about China improving our infrastructure, then why is our infrastructure in such poor shape? Why is there a push to fund infrastructure with our own tax dollars? Is it because China is not adding the value you claim to the U.S.?

The only infrastructure China is improving is China's with our wealth.

What I said was that foreign investment in this country, like Honda building a car plant here, results in more jobs for Americans and more taxes to federal, state, and local government. Perhaps our infrastructure is in poor shape because of the inefficiency of our government?

Did you read the various articles I linked to above? These topics are discussed there.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Clocker

What loss of income? If I can buy the things I want or need cheaper by buying imports, my real income went up. I have more purchasing power than if I am restricted to domestic goods. I can buy more stuff.

Why do I care what they do with my money if they earned it? If Americans want my money, they can earn it.

What I said was that foreign investment in this country, like Honda building a car plant here, results in more jobs for Americans and more taxes to federal, state, and local government. Perhaps our infrastructure is in poor shape because of the inefficiency of our government?

Did you read the various articles I linked to above? These topics are discussed there.

Earn more without jobs? Yes, jobs are returning. Where were all these mfg jobs, before the elimination of NAFTA and other trade agreements and the imposition without tariffs?

All of your objections have been responded to in this thread and the other thread about on how jobs are lost through transfer of wealth and the reasons for the transfer of wealth.

Ross Perot did not lie about that sucking sound.

Repeating the same objections will not change the prior responses.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Ross Perot did not lie about that sucking sound.

That would be the same Ross Perot you quoted saying all of our car plants were going to move to Mexico?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You and Clocker are welcome to hold your opinions about trade.

My "opinion" as expressed here is agreement with the findings of top economic analysts regarding trade deficits and, a subject totally ignored by Trump and the Trumpeters, capital surpluses. The articles I have linked to in this thread are a good start in understanding economic reality.

Trump and Friends who condemn trade deficits as harmful ignore the reality that this country has, over the long run, grown rich and prosperous running such "deficits" for decades. Unlike personal deficits, trade deficits are merely a term showing that this country is buying more imports than we are selling exports, while at the same time we are getting more foreign investment in our economy than we are investing in the economies of other country. Those investments create new jobs for Americans and more than compensate for the jobs lost to net declines in exports. Jobs are lost and jobs are created. It happens in a growing economy. The impact of The Donald's tariffs on consumers demonstrates the danger of trying to micromanage the economy.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Clocker

That would be the same Ross Perot you quoted saying all of our car plants were going to move to Mexico?

A big chunk of the auto industry did mover there.
My company closed all its union plants and moved to mexico.
Not alone in that deal.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

A big chunk of the auto industry did mover there.
My company closed all its union plants and moved to mexico.
Not alone in that deal.

Clocker would respond with that's how capitalism works.

Workers in the United States unionize. Become too expensive. So companies go elsewhere until the cycle repeats.

Trump did a great job raising wages for Mexican workers... at some point their union/labor movements will price themselves out of a job too... then on to the next place.

That's how the world works.

Unless you support socialism... then by all means... roll with the Trump/Bernie plan.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Clocker

My "opinion" as expressed here is agreement with the findings of top economic analysts regarding trade deficits and, a subject totally ignored by Trump and the Trumpeters, capital surpluses. The articles I have linked to in this thread are a good start in understanding economic reality.

Trump and Friends who condemn trade deficits as harmful ignore the reality that this country has, over the long run, grown rich and prosperous running such "deficits" for decades. Unlike personal deficits, trade deficits are merely a term showing that this country is buying more imports than we are selling exports, while at the same time we are getting more foreign investment in our economy than we are investing in the economies of other country. Those investments create new jobs for Americans and more than compensate for the jobs lost to net declines in exports. Jobs are lost and jobs are created. It happens in a growing economy. The impact of The Donald's tariffs on consumers demonstrates the danger of trying to micromanage the economy.

First, I like to say I do enjoy our discussions, but this ground has been covered. with that said.

I agree the article is true enough, as it is describing what happens. When you buy more than you sell you have a trade deficit. BTW we never disagreed on the definition of a trade deficit.

The part about getting more foreign investment money is not a given. There is no rule requiring a foreign country to invest its surplus money here and they may or may not. However, with China they are investing money here. We have discussed this, Class' example of buying your house,with your money.

About our overseas investing. A trade deficit is not necessary for investing overseas. China is investing here, overseas, because it has a trade surplus. when China had a trade deficit it could not invest overseas. No wealth to invest, no investment.

Also, some jobs may result from trade deficits, but not nearly enough to cover the lost jobs. Jobs exported out of the country, which are used to build the foreign country's wealth.

The danger Of Trump's tariffs is to China's and Canada's economy.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Clocker would respond with that's how capitalism works.

Workers in the United States unionize. Become too expensive. So companies go elsewhere until the cycle repeats.

Trump did a great job raising wages for Mexican workers... at some point their union/labor movements will price themselves out of a job too... then on to the next place.

That's how the world works.

Unless you support socialism... then by all means... roll with the Trump/Bernie plan.

Capitalism should work on the individual level. Capitalism is each individual business is making its own trade agreement, not the government. The government is picking winners and losers, that is not capitalism.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Capitalism should work on the individual level. Capitalism is each individual business is making its own trade agreement, not the government. The government is picking winners and losers, that is not capitalism.

If you believe that there is no reason you should support the President's trade policy and agenda.

NAFTA would be a good thing... not a bad thing... individuals and companies have more freedom to act in their own best interest.

Instead you pick up the talking points of the President regarding trade deficits which are judged strictly by governments. Not individuals or businesses.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

If you believe that there is no reason you should support the President's trade policy and agenda.

NAFTA would be a good thing... not a bad thing... individuals and companies have more freedom to act in their own best interest.

Instead you pick up the talking points of the President regarding trade deficits which are judged strictly by governments. Not individuals or businesses.

Whoa there. You are not even in the same zip code with the above assertion.

I never said State trade agreements are evil in themselves and neither has this current administration. In fact the administration is negotiating for a trade agreement with China and has negotiated agreements with Mexico, etc.

I pointed out the error in thinking that State involvement is capitalism.

cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

The State being involves is a manipulated version of capitalism.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Whoa there. You are not even in the same zip code with the above assertion.

I never said State trade agreements are evil in themselves and neither has this current administration. In fact the administration is negotiating for a trade agreement with China and has negotiated agreements with Mexico, etc.

I pointed out the error in thinking that State involvement is capitalism.

cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

The State being involves is a manipulated version of capitalism.

I'm sorry i thought you were arguing about trade deficits and citing job losses as a problem with free trade.

If you weren't I apologize. If you were it's hard to make that argument congruent with the post I quoted.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I'm sorry i thought you were arguing about trade deficits and citing job losses as a problem with free trade.

If you weren't I apologize. If you were it's hard to make that argument congruent with the post I quoted.

I never made that argument. The problem, per se, is not trade, the problem is the implementation and short-comings of certain trade agreements.

The government entering into a treaty deters free trade. The treaties allow tariffs, quotas, restrictions, etc. Treaties put restrictions on free trade.

free trade
/ˈˌfrē ˈtrād/
noun
international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

However, as I said I am not arguing against trade agreements ,as evils in themselves, or that we should have an economic system without government involvement.

Hope the above clarifies my position

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Tom

A big chunk of the auto industry did mover there.
My company closed all its union plants and moved to mexico.
Not alone in that deal.

American car makers moving out, German, Korean, and Japanese car makers moving in. What's wrong with this picture?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Clocker

American car makers moving out, German, Korean, and Japanese car makers moving in. What's wrong with this picture?

Let us say your above scenario is economically neutral. There is no impact on job loss/gain and investment remains the same.

Why is it better for American car manufactures to move out and German, Korean, and Japanese car makers to move in?

Wouldn't it be better if the American car companies stayed and we added to those jobs with German, Korean, and Japanese car makers?

If it is economically neutral, what is the economic point of it all this shuffling around?