Trade and the Economy

[Mountain Man]

Since doing something "at the drop of a hat" does not imply that you always do it there is a meaningful difference.

So I looked it up in the dictionary and, oh, hey...

"at the drop of a hat, at the slightest provocation or without delay"

The example sentence given is "He's ready to fight at the drop of a hat," which is no different than saying, "He's always ready to fight."

Similarly, "He tells lies at the drop of a hat," is no different than saying, "He's always telling lies."

So, yeah, you're not particularly bright, which in some ways is better than being a post-modernist since it's a more easily correctable condition.

[Mountain Man]

Author Gordan Chang has some good insight:

He points out the often ignored fact that the trade war has been going on for decades, and America has been losing. Trump is the first president probably since Reagan who is not afraid to fight back. Chang also notes how lopsided our current trade agreement is with China and that Trump's policy is a good thing because it's going to level the playing field and restore America's competitiveness.

[carpedm9587]

It also means "excessive or exaggerated," which is what you clearly meant when you said that "I do not recall using the 'always' superlative. Superlatives are Trump's domain, not mine." Anybody with half a brain (and I'll generously include you in that category, at least for now) knows that you weren't complimenting Trump for engaging in discourse "of the highest quality or degree."

That is absolutely true. I seldom find things to compliment Trump on. However, failure to compliment Trump (or anyone) does not a superlative make.

Furthermore, claiming that Trump lies "at the drop of the hat" is an obvious exaggeration/superlative.

Well now, technically, I don't think I can be accused of either. So Trump is accused of 2-6 lies per day, depending on which list you are looking at. So let me ask you this - how many hats do you see dropped per day?

Post-modernists like you might be easily fooled by such transparent and dishonest wordplay, but don't for a minute think that I am so easily taken in.

Oh I don't think you are taken in at all, MM. I'm pretty sure you're on top of things pretty much all of the time.

[carpedm9587]

Author Gordan Chang has some good insight:

He points out the often ignored fact that the trade war has been going on for decades, and America has been losing. Trump is the first president probably since Reagan who is not afraid to fight back. Chang also notes how lopsided our current trade agreement is with China and that Trump's policy is a good thing because it's going to level the playing field and restore America's competitiveness.

So about trade imbalances. They are often described as terrible things. So let me see - I have a trade imbalance with my dentist. I have a trade imbalance with the local grocery store. I also have a trade imbalance with my clients, the local hardware store, and pretty much every other group I work or engage with financially. You see - if you have something I want, and I do not have as much of what you want, then I am going to give you more money than you give me. The same is true vice versa.

Every country is going to have some degree of trade imbalance with every other country. The question is, how are we doing overall? So let's see. Per capita, we are the 12th wealthiest nation in the world. We have the highest nominal GDP in the world. We produce 25% of the world GDP.

All in all, this "poor us - other countries are victimizing us" mantra is a great political ploy - but (as with so many other things Trump says) it simply isn't true. Do we have industries that have been hurt by the global economy? Absolutely. Coal is near the top of the list. But you know what? When cars were invented, the entire buggy and buggy whip industry collapsed. Pumping dollars into it would have been folly. Buggies were dying and cars were the wave of the future. Today, the fossil fuels industry is on the same path. Renewables are the wave of the future - but Trump (and others) are trying to prop up the buggy whips, in denial of the hard reality that a limited resource will always give way to an unlimited one. There is only so much crude and coal in the ground. But sunlight and wind and waves are plentiful and perpetual.

Trump is looking backwards - and promising those who are also looking backwards, that he can "resurrect them." That ploy is doomed to fail. It's just a matter of time. Unfortunately, Trump MIGHT con the gullible into believing it long enough to give him 8 years. Hopefully...wiser minds will prevail.

[Mountain Man]

So about trade imbalances. They are often described as terrible things. So let me see - I have a trade imbalance with my dentist. I have a trade imbalance with the local grocery store. I also have a trade imbalance with my clients, the local hardware store, and pretty much every other group I work or engage with financially. You see - if you have something I want, and I do not have as much of what you want, then I am going to give you more money than you give me. The same is true vice versa.

Every country is going to have some degree of trade imbalance with every other country. The question is, how are we doing overall? So let's see. Per capita, we are the 12th wealthiest nation in the world. We have the highest nominal GDP in the world. We produce 25% of the world GDP.

All in all, this "poor us - other countries are victimizing us" mantra is a great political ploy - but (as with so many other things Trump says) it simply isn't true. Do we have industries that have been hurt by the global economy? Absolutely. Coal is near the top of the list. But you know what? When cars were invented, the entire buggy and buggy whip industry collapsed. Pumping dollars into it would have been folly. Buggies were dying and cars were the wave of the future. Today, the fossil fuels industry is on the same path. Renewables are the wave of the future - but Trump (and others) are trying to prop up the buggy whips, in denial of the hard reality that a limited resource will always give way to an unlimited one. There is only so much crude and coal in the ground. But sunlight and wind and waves are plentiful and perpetual.

Trump is looking backwards - and promising those who are also looking backwards, that he can "resurrect them." That ploy is doomed to fail. It's just a matter of time. Unfortunately, Trump MIGHT con the gullible into believing it long enough to give him 8 years. Hopefully...wiser minds will prevail.

Your list in the first paragraph are not examples of unbalanced trade because you are presumably paying and being paid a fair price for the products and services in question. In the case of the US vs China, it's more like getting swindled by a used car salesman. I certainly hope your company treats its customers better than that.

[carpedm9587]

Your list in the first paragraph are not examples of unbalanced trade because you are presumably paying and being paid a fair price for the products and services in question. In the case of the US vs China, it's more like getting swindled by a used car salesman. I certainly hope your company treats its customers better than that.

"Fair price" is a matter of perspective. $4K for an MRI when the same procedure costs $300 in other countries (and other states) seems a bit off-the-mark of "fair price." As far as I know, China is paying for everything they buy from us, and we are paying for everything we buy from them. So I'd be interested in knowing exactly how either side is being "swindled?"

[Mountain Man]

"Fair price" is a matter of perspective. $4K for an MRI when the same procedure costs $300 in other countries (and other states) seems a bit off-the-mark of "fair price." As far as I know, China is paying for everything they buy from us, and we are paying for everything we buy from them. So I'd be interested in knowing exactly how either side is being "swindled?"

I'm curious what you're basing your medical numbers on. Are you talking the up-front out of pocket cost without taking into consideration whatever is paid indirectly through taxes, i.e. the "free healthcare" scam?

At any rate, you appear to be conceding my point, that if someone is paying more than the (sometimes perceived) value they're receiving in return then it is an unfair situation that needs to be corrected, and that's exactly the situation we're finding ourselves in with China to the tune of a staggering $600 billion deficit! That's like paying $60,000 and getting a 1-cent value in return! It's unconscionable.

Interestingly, here's a Huffington Post article from 2011 titled Why Donald Trump Is Right on Trade. Of course that was back when liberals still sort of liked him, or at least didn't hate him with a burning passion, but I think the most interesting point here is that Trump has been formulating his plan over many, many years. Furthermore, the situation really hasn't changed much in the last 7-years. If anything, it's even worse now.

[carpedm9587]

I'm curious what you're basing your medical numbers on. Are you talking the up-front out of pocket cost without taking into consideration whatever is paid indirectly through taxes, i.e. the "free healthcare" scam?

Nope. The difference in price is a function of "MRI in a hospital" vs. "MRI in a dedicated MRI clinic," where those are allowed. The $300 was mostly about other countries. The lowest price I have found domestically was around $600. Unfortunately, by the time you add travel, lodging, loss of income, etc., none of which are considered reimbursable medical costs, it ends up being close to a wash to do the $4K procedure locally.

At any rate, you appear to be conceding my point, that if someone is paying more than the (sometimes perceived) value they're receiving in return then it is an unfair situation that needs to be corrected, and that's exactly the situation we're finding ourselves in with China to the tune of a staggering $600 billion deficit! That's like paying $60,000 and getting a 1-cent value in return! It's unconscionable.

Again, if your only metric is "deficit," you are not making your case. Deficits between countries are common is one country has more of what the other country wants than the reverse. And you have not shown that we are being "swindled." That another country has lower MRI costs than us does not appear to make the case.

Interestingly, here's a Huffington Post article from 2011 titled Why Donald Trump Is Right on Trade. Of course that was back when liberals still sort of liked him, or at least didn't hate him with a burning passion, but I think the most interesting point here is that Trump has been formulating his plan over many, many years. Furthermore, the situation really hasn't changed much in the last 7-years. If anything, it's even worse now.

I read the article, and found it uncompelling. They basically make the same assertion that there is something inherently wrong about a trade deficit. Until someone can make the case that China is somehow actually "swindling" us, beyond just asserting it, I'm not buying it. As I noted, I have a yawning trade gap with almost everyone I interact with. Goods flow in one direction and money in the other. Overall I am healthy and financially sound. Likewise, overall the U.S. remains the dominant economy. I don't see a problem.

[Charles]

So I looked it up in the dictionary and, oh, hey...

"at the drop of a hat, at the slightest provocation or without delay"

The example sentence given is "He's ready to fight at the drop of a hat," which is no different than saying, "He's always ready to fight."

Similarly, "He tells lies at the drop of a hat," is no different than saying, "He's always telling lies."

So, yeah, you're not particularly bright, which in some ways is better than being a post-modernist since it's a more easily correctable condition.

I like how you come to conclusions that are so easy to show wrong. Let’s have a look at it. My claim was that saying "This person lies at the drop of a hat" is not the same as saying "This person always lies".

You the quote the dictionary saying: "at the drop of a hat, at the slightest provocation or without delay"

So let me ask again: where does it say always? I don’t see it since it is not there. The fact that someone does something at the slightest provocation does not imply that this person always does it in cases where there is no provocation.

You the go on to say: “The example sentence given is "He's ready to fight at the drop of a hat," which is no different than saying, "He's always ready to fight."”

There you missed it again. In the first case it takes “the slightest provocation” which implies a provocation must be present. In your example which you claim “is no different” it does not take a provocation. So it is different. You want the always to be there in the first case but it is not.

And to go even further even if you were correct which I have just shown that you are not it does not even follow from the statement "He's always ready to fight." that he is always fighting. So if we translate to the example we discussed, if you claim a person is always ready to lie it does not follow that he is always lying. He may do it as soon as it is in his interest but if it is not always in his interest he is not always doing it.

So saying "He tells lies at the drop of a hat," is actually different than saying, "He's always telling lies." And your dictionary showed it. You implied the always but it is not there. And this is where this whole discussion started. You made the false claim that Carpe said that Trump always lied.

The fact that you end your post with a personal attack just adds to the general impression of a lack of good arguments in favour of your case.

[Mountain Man]

I read the article, and found it uncompelling.

Of course you did.

[carpedm9587]

Of course you did.

You do seem to prefer emojis to actually responding to the points made. It does not do a lot to convince...

[Mountain Man]

You do seem to prefer emojis to actually responding to the points made. It does not do a lot to convince...

Sorry, I have little tolerance for bullheaded ignorance. Your argument is basically that it's OK if China is ripping off the US to the tune of $600 billion annually because we have a lot of money. You think it's right to cheat someone just because they're rich? That's absurd. You're also downplaying the significant number of jobs that are being lost because of the massive trade deficit. That may not mean much to you, but it certainly means a lot to the guy who's having trouble making ends meet because he can't land a good paying job.

Source: Trump’s Right to Say He’s Not Launching a Trade War With China. He’s Doing Something Bigger.

...the current relationship between China and the U.S. needs to be disrupted. Chinese theft of intellectual property is sapping American innovation and therefore America’s economy. The IP Commission, in a 2017 update (PDF) to its landmark 2013 report, estimates the U.S. each year loses somewhere between $225 billion to $600 billion in intellectual property through predatory means. It almost goes without saying that most of that loss is, directly or indirectly, to China.

Some say the annual loss is far less than the Commission thinks, but the theft, even according to low estimates, is grievous for a country that has developed an innovation-based society.

Innovative America is now competing with China not just for dominance in 5G but also in artificial intelligence and quantum communications and computing.

Beijing, in order to compete, is devoting substantial state resources to these areas, some $300 billion for CM2025 alone. The U.S. Federal government, on the other hand, has been reluctant to match the Chinese commitment. Washington, D.C.-based trade expert Alan Tonelson told The Daily Beast that the Trump administration’s record when it comes to support for basic research “is mixed at best.”

If Washington is not going to help create the technologies of the future, it at least has to protect what the private sector in the United States develops. No one likes trade friction, but after decades of failing to stop Chinese theft, there are no more no-cost solutions. And there is now no choice but to impose costs on China greater than the benefits it obtains from theft.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...ger?ref=scroll

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Trump is right: China’s a trade cheat

Washington approached China’s entry into the world trading system no differently from that of other countries that joined in the mid-20th century. As countries were admitted, the free world (especially the United States) opened its markets to the new entrants, and those countries in turn lowered barriers to their markets. That’s how it went with such nations as Japan, South Korea and Singapore. But there were two notable factors about these countries: They were relatively small compared with the size of the global economy, and they also lived under the American security umbrella. Both factors meant that Washington and the West had considerable leverage over these new entrants. Singapore had 2.2 million people and a gross domestic product of $19 billion when it joined the GATT (the precursor to the WTO), while South Korea had 30 million people and a GDP of $41 billion. Japan was larger, with 90 million people and a GDP of under $800 billion. (All GDP figures are adjusted for inflation.)

And then came China, with 1.3 billion people and a GDP of $2.4 trillion when it joined the WTO in 2001. That was almost a fifth of the U.S. economy. The Chinese seemed to recognize that once they were in the system, the size of their market would ensure that every country would vie for access, and this would give them the ability to cheat without much fear of reprisal. Moreover, Beijing was never dependent on Washington for its security. It had fought a war against American troops in the 1950s with some success and had grown into a great power in its own right.

The scale and speed of China’s integration into the world trading system made it a seismic event. The distinguished economist David Autor, along with two colleagues, has published study after study on the impact of the so-called China Shock. They conclude that about a quarter of all manufacturing jobs lost in the United States between 1990 and 2007 could be explained by the deluge of Chinese imports. Nothing on this scale had happened before.

Look at the Chinese economy today. It has managed to block or curb the world’s most advanced and successful technology companies, from Google to Facebook to Amazon. Foreign banks often have to operate with local partners who add zero value — essentially a tax on foreign companies. Foreign manufacturers are forced to share their technology with local partners who then systematically reverse engineer some of the same products and compete against their partners. And then there is cybertheft. The most extensive cyberwarfare waged by a foreign power against the United States is done not by Russia but by China. The targets are American companies, whose secrets and intellectual property are then shared with Chinese competitors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.4fcfda787819

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Trump’s Got It Right on Trade

The Obama Administration heralded the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement as creating “countless new opportunities for U.S. exporters to sell more Made-in-America goods, services and agricultural products to Korean customers – and to support more good jobs here at home.” Since implemented in 2012, imports from Korea have risen much more than exports, and the bilateral trade deficit is up about $16 billion—destroying 130,000 good-paying American jobs.

Now the Obama Administration is making similarly fanciful claims to win congressional approval for a Trans-Pacific Partnership . It would establish free trade with 11 other nations, including Japan, without cleaning up subsidies and currency manipulation.

Overall, the U.S. trade deficit exceeds $500 billion a year and kills about 4 million jobs. Lost manufacturing takes a big bite out of R&D spending and that goes a long way toward explaining why growth is so disappointing and median family incomes are down $4000 since 2000.

Trump’s proposals for fixing trade—starting with China—address the salient issues of currency, trade barriers and subsidies. Those echo Mitt Romney’s 2012 platform—and candidate Obama in 2008—but threaten entrenched interests in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Trump is hardly reckless on trade—just a long needed agent for change.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ight-on-trade/

© Copyright Original Source

In simple language, our trade deficit with China is a bad thing, and quite frankly, your claim that equitable private transactions is analogous to China ripping off the US and depressing us economically is laughable, naive, and curiously ignorant for someone who supposedly runs (or used to run) his own business.

And that's why my first instinct is to roll my eyes at you.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry, I have little tolerance for bullheaded ignorance. Your argument is basically that it's OK if China is ripping off the US to the tune of $600 billion annually because we have a lot of money.

No - my argument is that a trade imbalance does not equal "ripping off." My dentist is not ripping me off because I give him money and he never gives me any. My grocery store is not ripping me off because I give them money and they never give me any. I have a 100% "trade imbalance" with both (and pretty much everyone else). For my clients, the opposite is true: they give me money and I don't give them any, so I have a 100% trade imbalance with them too - yet no one is ripping anyone off.

You think it's right to cheat someone just because they're rich? That's absurd.

You do love to add things to my post and then shoot them down. I believe that is called a straw man argument. Since I never said this, I have no need to defend it.

You're also downplaying the significant number of jobs that are being lost because of the massive trade deficit. That may not mean much to you, but it certainly means a lot to the guy who's having trouble making ends meet because he can't land a good paying job.

You will have to make the case for how it is jobs are lost due to a trade deficit.

Source: Trump’s Right to Say He’s Not Launching a Trade War With China. He’s Doing Something Bigger.

...the current relationship between China and the U.S. needs to be disrupted. Chinese theft of intellectual property is sapping American innovation and therefore America’s economy. The IP Commission, in a 2017 update (PDF) to its landmark 2013 report, estimates the U.S. each year loses somewhere between $225 billion to $600 billion in intellectual property through predatory means. It almost goes without saying that most of that loss is, directly or indirectly, to China. Some say the annual loss is far less than the Commission thinks, but the theft, even according to low estimates, is grievous for a country that has developed an innovation-based society.

Innovative America is now competing with China not just for dominance in 5G but also in artificial intelligence and quantum communications and computing.

Beijing, in order to compete, is devoting substantial state resources to these areas, some $300 billion for CM2025 alone. The U.S. Federal government, on the other hand, has been reluctant to match the Chinese commitment. Washington, D.C.-based trade expert Alan Tonelson told The Daily Beast that the Trump administration’s record when it comes to support for basic research “is mixed at best.”

If Washington is not going to help create the technologies of the future, it at least has to protect what the private sector in the United States develops. No one likes trade friction, but after decades of failing to stop Chinese theft, there are no more no-cost solutions. And there is now no choice but to impose costs on China greater than the benefits it obtains from theft.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...ger?ref=scroll

© Copyright Original Source

OK - NOW you're getting somewhere. But the problem here is not "trade imbalance," it's "theft of intellectual property." That needs to be addressed, I absolutely agree.

Source: Trump is right: China’s a trade cheat

Washington approached China’s entry into the world trading system no differently from that of other countries that joined in the mid-20th century. As countries were admitted, the free world (especially the United States) opened its markets to the new entrants, and those countries in turn lowered barriers to their markets. That’s how it went with such nations as Japan, South Korea and Singapore. But there were two notable factors about these countries: They were relatively small compared with the size of the global economy, and they also lived under the American security umbrella. Both factors meant that Washington and the West had considerable leverage over these new entrants. Singapore had 2.2 million people and a gross domestic product of $19 billion when it joined the GATT (the precursor to the WTO), while South Korea had 30 million people and a GDP of $41 billion. Japan was larger, with 90 million people and a GDP of under $800 billion. (All GDP figures are adjusted for inflation.)

And then came China, with 1.3 billion people and a GDP of $2.4 trillion when it joined the WTO in 2001. That was almost a fifth of the U.S. economy. The Chinese seemed to recognize that once they were in the system, the size of their market would ensure that every country would vie for access, and this would give them the ability to cheat without much fear of reprisal. Moreover, Beijing was never dependent on Washington for its security. It had fought a war against American troops in the 1950s with some success and had grown into a great power in its own right.

The scale and speed of China’s integration into the world trading system made it a seismic event. The distinguished economist David Autor, along with two colleagues, has published study after study on the impact of the so-called China Shock. They conclude that about a quarter of all manufacturing jobs lost in the United States between 1990 and 2007 could be explained by the deluge of Chinese imports. Nothing on this scale had happened before.

Look at the Chinese economy today. It has managed to block or curb the world’s most advanced and successful technology companies, from Google to Facebook to Amazon. Foreign banks often have to operate with local partners who add zero value — essentially a tax on foreign companies. Foreign manufacturers are forced to share their technology with local partners who then systematically reverse engineer some of the same products and compete against their partners. And then there is cybertheft. The most extensive cyberwarfare waged by a foreign power against the United States is done not by Russia but by China. The targets are American companies, whose secrets and intellectual property are then shared with Chinese competitors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.4fcfda787819

© Copyright Original Source

Again - getting there, sort of. China is not a purely capitalistic society, and it is not a democracy. Naturally, if you have a juggernaut of a market (1.4T), and people wanting access to it, you're going to be bargaining from a position of strength. Why is that a surprise? And in a country that carefully controls so much, why is it a surprise that outside businesses are being required to work with and through inside businesses? And if companies want access to that market, they're going to have to adhere to Chinese policies. No one is forcing these businesses to work there. They can simply pull out and take their business elsewhere. China is not a "free market." Why do people continually expect it to be?

Source: Trump’s Got It Right on Trade

The Obama Administration heralded the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement as creating “countless new opportunities for U.S. exporters to sell more Made-in-America goods, services and agricultural products to Korean customers – and to support more good jobs here at home.” Since implemented in 2012, imports from Korea have risen much more than exports, and the bilateral trade deficit is up about $16 billion—destroying 130,000 good-paying American jobs.

Now the Obama Administration is making similarly fanciful claims to win congressional approval for a Trans-Pacific Partnership . It would establish free trade with 11 other nations, including Japan, without cleaning up subsidies and currency manipulation.

Overall, the U.S. trade deficit exceeds $500 billion a year and kills about 4 million jobs. Lost manufacturing takes a big bite out of R&D spending and that goes a long way toward explaining why growth is so disappointing and median family incomes are down $4000 since 2000.

Trump’s proposals for fixing trade—starting with China—address the salient issues of currency, trade barriers and subsidies. Those echo Mitt Romney’s 2012 platform—and candidate Obama in 2008—but threaten entrenched interests in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Trump is hardly reckless on trade—just a long needed agent for change.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ight-on-trade/

© Copyright Original Source

Another article that defines a trade imbalance as "bad" with no substantiation.

In simple language, our trade deficit with China is a bad thing, and quite frankly, your claim that equitable private transactions is analogous to China ripping off the US and depressing us economically is laughable, naive, and curiously ignorant for someone who supposedly runs (or used to run) his own business.

Claiming it is so doesn't make it so. And I still run my own business.

And that's why my first instinct is to roll my eyes at you.

MM, my impression is that your "go to" response is an emoji intended to belittle the other person. It's why I don't mind teasing you a bit, now and then. Much as I generally try to treat others with respect, it is easy to lose sight of that objective with someone who has such obvious disdain and disrespect for anyone who deigns to disagree with them.

[Mountain Man]

[carpedm9587]

I rest my case...