• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Agman on Trade Question

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
don said:
sandhusker the fact is americans consume more than they produce and finance it by conducting business in other parts of the world and bringing home the profits. there is a trade deficit yes but you also have to look at the capital inflows from other parts of the world.

Thanks, a great answer and the correct one to all the trade deficit mongers. The U.S has a capital inflow surplus which most individuals are totally unaware of.

Econ: How has this helped helped sellers of U.S. goods, except the debt and lower U.S. interest rates, Agman? We should have an even platform to SELL our goods to China. Sometimes it is not all about subsidizing the cost of capital and enslaving your children in debt. That policy is pretty short sighted, but helpful to corporations wanting money, and causing housing bubbles. Here is the article:


Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the April 18, 2006 edition

No yuan is an island
The Monitor's View
When President Bush plays host to China's leader Thursday, their lunch chat will probably be more about currencies than current events. Hu Jintao may try to tell Mr. Bush that China can't allow a free market to rule over its yuan.

A Chinese currency kept at such an artificially low exchange rate that "Made in China" goods flood US stores and underprice American manufacturers is as critical to the survival of Mr. Hu's Communist Party as is political stability in China.


In the Monitor
Tuesday, 04/18/06

Strong spending still defies economic gravity

Employers risk little in hiring illegal labor
Attack tests Israeli response to Hamas
Egypt's grand mufti issues fatwa: no sculpture
Opinion: For GIs, some days in Iraq are slightly less worse than others
More stories...

Get all the Monitor's headlines by e-mail.
Subscribe for free.



E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish


Letting the yuan float on world markets, as Hu may argue, will not continue to create the kind of export wealth in China that is needed to avoid more peasant uprisings (an almost daily event in rural areas).

Will Bush humor Hu?

Or will the president instead push the Treasury Department to brand China as a "currency manipulator," as might happen soon after the visit? (Treasury must make semiannual reports on China's foreign-exchange controls, which now help keep the yuan undervalued by 20 to 40 percent.)

Public pressure in Congress to lessen China's negative effects on the American economy could force Bush to charge China with anticompetitive behavior. That would mainly mean more loss of face for Beijing and not much in real sanctions.

Either way, some in Congress threaten to pass a bill that calls for a cutoff of loans to China from international development banks if the present controls on the yuan remain.

Coming only months before a US election, Hu's visit has put Bush in an awkward spot. (The visit was originally scheduled for last September, but hurricane Katrina forced a postponement.) To avoid more pressure from Capitol Hill, the president may have delayed the Treasury report until after Hu's departure. The White House did structure the trip as something less than an official state visit.

Even as a reluctant host, Bush needs to send a signal that China's immense clout in global markets - its economy is growing at 10 percent - requires that it not isolate the yuan.

Last July, China did allow a slight but controlled flexibility to the yuan's value, but hardly enough. And last week, it raised the dollar amount that Chinese can spend overseas from $8,000 to $20,000, and allowed a similar rise for Chinese firms. This is a small but backdoor way toward currency freedom.

Also last week, though, China beat out Japan for the first time to become the world's largest holder of foreign reserves ($875 billion). And last year the US trade deficit with China topped $200 billion.

The ratio of US imports from China compared to exports to China is now 6 to 1. That is twice as high as the ratio during the height of US-Japan trade frictions in the 1980s.

Hu needs this visit to go well to prove to party rivals that he can manage China-US ties. That will boost his authority before next year's party congress. But his slogan for China - "peaceful development" - isn't keeping economic peace with the US.

As inward as Hu's focus may be, he can't ignore the fact that China can't rely on free trade to thrive while denying free trade for the yuan.

China is like a bull in the global trade shop. The US needs to persuade it to be more like a customer.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
I dont know why you want to talk about Communist China? I started to read the article and then I got thinking, what does this have to do with anything?
RCULT is always compareing Communist china to canada.
When I hear the word China I always think of the enemy. I think of them the same way I do about N. Korea and Iran.
40,000 Canadians left Canada to voluntier in the US army in Vietnam. China did not like the Soviets but they were also helping them provide support for the VCs because they hated Americans more than the evil empire.
Canada faught in Korea against the Communist Chinese backed N. Koreans. But yet rcult cant say the word china without mentioning Canada.
BTW Econ im not saying you do this but there is an rculter on here that does it all the time and its hard even though I know he doesnt mean it personally but its hard not to take it personal.
Yes I know this thread isnt about Canada but it stems from a Canadian trade thread.
Like there is a big nasty world out there and most of it seems to hate America. A lot of that world hates Canada just because we are such good friends with you.
Canada is about the biggest friend you guys have.
Just to set the record straight. Canada is nothing like Communist China.
Have a good day, I have to go to work. God im not getting nothing done around here becausev this damn forum is addictive!!!!!
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
don said:
sandhusker the fact is americans consume more than they produce and finance it by conducting business in other parts of the world and bringing home the profits. there is a trade deficit yes but you also have to look at the capital inflows from other parts of the world.

Thanks, a great answer and the correct one to all the trade deficit mongers. The U.S has a capital inflow surplus which most individuals are totally unaware of.

Econ: How has this helped helped sellers of U.S. goods, except the debt and lower U.S. interest rates, Agman? We should have an even platform to SELL our goods to China. Sometimes it is not all about subsidizing the cost of capital and enslaving your children in debt. That policy is pretty short sighted, but helpful to corporations wanting money, and causing housing bubbles.


Fact: 4.7% unemployment

Jobs: approximately 200,000 new jobs per month, the envy of the industrialized world.

Exports: U.S. exports are at record levels and the deficit with China declined last month. China will be our largest export market in several years. Our net deficit with China will narrow accordingly. China is already the third largest importer of goods in the world.

Inflation: U. S. and world inflation rate remains low

U.S. dollar: While under pressure one must realize the dollar was overvalued for an extended period of time. This adjustment is normal and will help to stem the trade deficit.

The housing bubble: What else is new if you listen to the news-more fear mongering? Sure there are areas where price adjustments will occur but there will be no housing collapse.

Protectionism poses the greatest risk to our economic well being and growth.

You can waste your time reading poorly researched articles while I spend my time doing some actual research to discern the facts. The fear mongers have been wrong for how many decades now?????
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
I dont know why you want to talk about Communist China? I started to read the article and then I got thinking, what does this have to do with anything?
RCULT is always compareing Communist china to canada.
When I hear the word China I always think of the enemy. I think of them the same way I do about N. Korea and Iran.
40,000 Canadians left Canada to voluntier in the US army in Vietnam. China did not like the Soviets but they were also helping them provide support for the VCs because they hated Americans more than the evil empire.
Canada faught in Korea against the Communist Chinese backed N. Koreans. But yet rcult cant say the word china without mentioning Canada.
BTW Econ im not saying you do this but there is an rculter on here that does it all the time and its hard even though I know he doesnt mean it personally but its hard not to take it personal.
Yes I know this thread isnt about Canada but it stems from a Canadian trade thread.
Like there is a big nasty world out there and most of it seems to hate America. A lot of that world hates Canada just because we are such good friends with you.
Canada is about the biggest friend you guys have.
Just to set the record straight. Canada is nothing like Communist China.
Have a good day, I have to go to work. God im not getting nothing done around here becausev this damn forum is addictive!!!!!

Roper, I am not comparing Canada to Communist China. I am saying that our trade agreements have major impacts on our economy and that we have been sold a bill of goods by this administration's ability to broker a good trade agreement with countries like China.

Trade with China isn't bad, the trade agreements are. Agman was responding off of Brad that the U.S. had a capital surplus. The capital surplus has happened, in part, because the U.S. has been involved in poor trade agreements with countries like China. We have benefited in the way of lower cost of some goods which has had a deflationary effect on our economy. China using the money earned to buy U.S. debt has indebted more of my kid's future while making it look as if the deficit spending has had no effect on the economy. It is trading an IOU for making it look like everything is rosey.

My argument is that trade is supposed to be two way (I am not in the rcalf argument with Canada as I side with producers on these issues wherever they live). China should be using the money earned to buy U.S. products, not U.S. govt. debt. After Japan, they hold the most U.S. debt abroad. I would rather them make money off of trade with the U.S. and then buy some goods that U.S. producers produce, not subsidize the U.S. government. It only leads to a trick on the U.S. population on how things are going by government spending more than it takes in as well as a trick on the avg. Chinese.

Our poor trade agreements have allowed this administration to get a free ride but it puts the future taxation of my children going to the China oligarchs, or worse, the Chinese govt.

All to get a short term gain so you can get elected. Agman applauded the capital surpluses we have in the world now, but it comes at the expense of the U.S. economy and the production of goods here.

It is unsustainable.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Thanks, a great answer and the correct one to all the trade deficit mongers. The U.S has a capital inflow surplus which most individuals are totally unaware of.

Econ: How has this helped helped sellers of U.S. goods, except the debt and lower U.S. interest rates, Agman? We should have an even platform to SELL our goods to China. Sometimes it is not all about subsidizing the cost of capital and enslaving your children in debt. That policy is pretty short sighted, but helpful to corporations wanting money, and causing housing bubbles.


1. Fact: 4.7% unemployment

2. Jobs: approximately 200,000 new jobs per month, the envy of the industrialized world.

3. Exports: U.S. exports are at record levels and the deficit with China declined last month. China will be our largest export market in several years. Our net deficit with China will narrow accordingly. China is already the third largest importer of goods in the world.

4. Inflation: U. S. and world inflation rate remains low

5. U.S. dollar: While under pressure one must realize the dollar was overvalued for an extended period of time. This adjustment is normal and will help to stem the trade deficit.

6. The housing bubble: What else is new if you listen to the news-more fear mongering? Sure there are areas where price adjustments will occur but there will be no housing collapse.

7. Protectionism poses the greatest risk to our economic well being and growth.

8. You can waste your time reading poorly researched articles while I spend my time doing some actual research to discern the facts. The fear mongers have been wrong for how many decades now?????

First of all, Agman, I don't believe in protectionism. I think trade is a good thing. Countries have real comparative advantages in products and good trade is beneficial. Poor trade policies, however, hurt the country as a whole although it may be beneficial to some politicians.

While you spurt out a lot of interesting numbers or facts, you are not addressing the allegations I have brought up.

If I had an ugly daughter with a wart on her nose (which I don't--and I also don't believe in the beauty being just skin deep) and was in one of those countries where fathers take great pride in marrying off their girls, I am sure I could come up with a million good things to say about my daughter to marry her off anyway. It would still not make the wart disappear. In my haste to marry her off, it would not be in her best interest for me to marry her off to someone who would not treat her right just because I had a hard time getting her married.

You are advocating the the latter.

1. The unemployment number you cite, although very good, still has some problems with ascertaing the quality of good jobs as well as counting people who want jobs but are not looking for whatever reason.

2. Those working those jobs are spending more time at them than anyone else in the world--and that is nothing to be envious about---unless you are the owner of the business.

3. We need more than a little decline in our trade deficit with China. As I said before, we need them to buy from us some of our products---not just our debt and rights to tax my children.

4. Thanks largley in part to China and Japan buying our debt. In essence we are trading the right to tax our children for current low interest rates. That is the long term trade I am concerned about.

5. The yuan has been undervalued because the Chinese have not let it rise. Chinese can come and buy many companies and property in the U.S. and the world with dollars, but Americans can not necessarily do the same in China.

6. Fear mongering? One of the problems with your argument here is that in many places in the U.S., families will not be able to buy a home based on their income---they will either have to inherit money to get in the housing market or they will have to already be in it as incomes are not warrantng some of these high prices on salaries alone. You can' go much lower in interest rate from where we are now, and it can go way up. I don't like the idea that some Chinese peasant has to give up his standard of living so that we can have low interest rates in the U.S. Something just doesn't seem right about that. Like I said before, I would rather earn the money to buy a higher priced house by producing good products, not getting that by lower interest rates off the backs of some poor Chinese peasant.

This has all the signs of a bubble. Will it burst? Even if it doesn't, the consequences are already there.

7. Who is talking about protectionism? Now you are doing the fear mongering. I am talking about not allowing politicians pull the wool over everyone's eyes for short term gain. It isn't good for our ecomomy or the world's.

8. I don't get all my ideas from "poorly written articles". I read a lot of stuff that I totally don't agree with. The difference is that I can tell the difference, while you seem to not be able to, unless it suits your needs.

Now it is time to start showing your tell again, Agman.

I am waiting.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
By the way, here is one of those "poorly written articles". If you don't like the way it is presented, maybe you can go to the sources cited.

http://www.uwec.edu/Geography/Ivogeler/w111/greedy.htm

I will remind you that there is an alternative way of measuring the standard of living. It is the GDP minus military spending. It shows that the U.S. population may not have as high a standard of living as they thought. One of the drawbacks is a lot of wounded soldiers coming home and real casualties.

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!
Standard of living in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Life in the
United States
Culture
Politics
Economy
Education
Social structure
Arts and entertainment
Holidays
Languages
Human rights
Poverty
Social issues
Religion
Standard of living
edit box

The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten, though generally ranked lower than the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia, and Japan; Canada and Norway have alternately held the top spot for some time. On the Human Poverty Index the US is ranked lowest among the selection of 17 wealthiest countries, scoring low on all counts but long term unemployment.

The United States measures better under some measures of standard of living than others. Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions. The numbers of televisions, vehicles, and other such products per person are considerably higher than in any other country. For instance, the United States has some 754 televisions for every thousand people; no other major state is even above 700, with Japan being closest at 680/1000.

The United States also consistently has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, usually only beaten by Japan; however, the measures used to establish such a rate are controversial and may not always be comparable among countries.

While the United States' mean wealth is the highest of any major country and its median income is near the highest in the world, there is a largely unequal income distribution. Most of the wealth in the United States is held by the topmost section of the population. The United States also has more people below the defined poverty line than 26 other countries; however, the measures used to establish a poverty line are controversial and may not always be comparable among countries. The wealthiest ten percent of Americans are 15 times richer than the bottom ten percent. In Japan, for instance, the ratio is only 4.2:1. Some regard this imbalance as a product of the United States' long policy of having a more free market economy, while other countries are more ready to sacrifice net wealth in favor of economic equality.
 

don

Well-known member
sandhusker i don't know if you're that unaware (to put it politely) or if you really don't stop to think about things. you respond to roperab that the per capita trade in your favour doesn't mean anything because in absolute dollars you have a trade deficit with a smaller country (canada) and you also have a trade deficit with china (which has a bigger population than usa) so population size is irrelevant. think about it, canada is a developed country with an economy similar to your own. china is less developed and is a low cost economy. take off the blinders and see how the world works. you and econ want to live in a country with arguably the highest standard of living in the world but not have to compete with less developed countries that have lower cost structures than yours. you're the ones who will lose because you're trying to deny logical economic forces. more developed economies have to concentrate on different goods and services that are more suited to taking advantage of the nature of the economic factors, generally higher tech production not dependent on extensive use of resources.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
don said:
sandhusker i don't know if you're that unaware (to put it politely) or if you really don't stop to think about things. you respond to roperab that the per capita trade in your favour doesn't mean anything because in absolute dollars you have a trade deficit with a smaller country (canada) and you also have a trade deficit with china (which has a bigger population than usa) so population size is irrelevant. think about it, canada is a developed country with an economy similar to your own. china is less developed and is a low cost economy. take off the blinders and see how the world works. you and econ want to live in a country with arguably the highest standard of living in the world but not have to compete with less developed countries that have lower cost structures than yours. you're the ones who will lose because you're trying to deny logical economic forces. more developed economies have to concentrate on different goods and services that are more suited to taking advantage of the nature of the economic factors, generally higher tech production not dependent on extensive use of resources.

You really mistake my arguments, don. I want more of the money from trade, in whatever economy, to go to the actual producers, not those who have cornered the market and are using market/political power. That is how you get an economy that has the highest standard of living in the world. When wealth and power is concentrated, it does not maximize the wealth produced.

The exercise of market power is not the employment of logical economic forces, it is the abuse of power to gain more power.
 

don

Well-known member
econ: You really mistake my arguments, don. I want more of the money from trade, in whatever economy, to go to the actual producers, not those who have cornered the market and are using market/political power. That is how you get an economy that has the highest standard of living in the world. When wealth and power is concentrated, it does not maximize the wealth produced.

The exercise of market power is not the employment of logical economic forces, it is the abuse of power to gain more power.

that is irrelelvant to trade imbalances. the distribution of profits is determined by the internal economic structure of a country. i think it can be argued that all the m&a's starting when in the 1980's and further takeovers is the final maturing of american capitalism and has carried it to such an extreme that it is becoming dysfuntional. unless profits are distributed equitably through a value chain the market will, over time, destruct because one sector or another will become unworkable. too darned many mba's running around with no long term view of an economy, unethical business practices and putting fiduciary duty above any other considerations.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Econ: How has this helped helped sellers of U.S. goods, except the debt and lower U.S. interest rates, Agman? We should have an even platform to SELL our goods to China. Sometimes it is not all about subsidizing the cost of capital and enslaving your children in debt. That policy is pretty short sighted, but helpful to corporations wanting money, and causing housing bubbles.


1. Fact: 4.7% unemployment

2. Jobs: approximately 200,000 new jobs per month, the envy of the industrialized world.

3. Exports: U.S. exports are at record levels and the deficit with China declined last month. China will be our largest export market in several years. Our net deficit with China will narrow accordingly. China is already the third largest importer of goods in the world.

4. Inflation: U. S. and world inflation rate remains low

5. U.S. dollar: While under pressure one must realize the dollar was overvalued for an extended period of time. This adjustment is normal and will help to stem the trade deficit.

6. The housing bubble: What else is new if you listen to the news-more fear mongering? Sure there are areas where price adjustments will occur but there will be no housing collapse.

7. Protectionism poses the greatest risk to our economic well being and growth.

8. You can waste your time reading poorly researched articles while I spend my time doing some actual research to discern the facts. The fear mongers have been wrong for how many decades now?????

First of all, Agman, I don't believe in protectionism. I think trade is a good thing. Countries have real comparative advantages in products and good trade is beneficial. Poor trade policies, however, hurt the country as a whole although it may be beneficial to some politicians.

While you spurt out a lot of interesting numbers or facts, you are not addressing the allegations I have brought up.

If I had an ugly daughter with a wart on her nose (which I don't--and I also don't believe in the beauty being just skin deep) and was in one of those countries where fathers take great pride in marrying off their girls, I am sure I could come up with a million good things to say about my daughter to marry her off anyway. It would still not make the wart disappear. In my haste to marry her off, it would not be in her best interest for me to marry her off to someone who would not treat her right just because I had a hard time getting her married.

You are advocating the the latter.

1. The unemployment number you cite, although very good, still has some problems with ascertaing the quality of good jobs as well as counting people who want jobs but are not looking for whatever reason.

2. Those working those jobs are spending more time at them than anyone else in the world--and that is nothing to be envious about---unless you are the owner of the business.

3. We need more than a little decline in our trade deficit with China. As I said before, we need them to buy from us some of our products---not just our debt and rights to tax my children.

4. Thanks largley in part to China and Japan buying our debt. In essence we are trading the right to tax our children for current low interest rates. That is the long term trade I am concerned about.

5. The yuan has been undervalued because the Chinese have not let it rise. Chinese can come and buy many companies and property in the U.S. and the world with dollars, but Americans can not necessarily do the same in China.

6. Fear mongering? One of the problems with your argument here is that in many places in the U.S., families will not be able to buy a home based on their income---they will either have to inherit money to get in the housing market or they will have to already be in it as incomes are not warrantng some of these high prices on salaries alone. You can' go much lower in interest rate from where we are now, and it can go way up. I don't like the idea that some Chinese peasant has to give up his standard of living so that we can have low interest rates in the U.S. Something just doesn't seem right about that. Like I said before, I would rather earn the money to buy a higher priced house by producing good products, not getting that by lower interest rates off the backs of some poor Chinese peasant.

This has all the signs of a bubble. Will it burst? Even if it doesn't, the consequences are already there.

7. Who is talking about protectionism? Now you are doing the fear mongering. I am talking about not allowing politicians pull the wool over everyone's eyes for short term gain. It isn't good for our ecomomy or the world's.

8. I don't get all my ideas from "poorly written articles". I read a lot of stuff that I totally don't agree with. The difference is that I can tell the difference, while you seem to not be able to, unless it suits your needs.

Now it is time to start showing your tell again, Agman.

I am waiting.

Your attempt to impose your standards on other developing countries while noble is also short sighted. They are not us and we are not them; transitions take time especially in a country as populated as China. What we may view as cruel and demeaning they may view as a high standard of living and a vast improvement their former life style.

Regarding # 1. Yes there will always be some problems but your claim of lack of quality of jobs is just headline news. The facts do not bear out that some conclusion. There are some in every society who elect not to work. That is their problem not yours or mine.

Regarding #2. I quess we could go the way of France and for that matter Europe!! The very thing you cite as a problem I see as an advantage and it shows up in productivity.

Regarding #3. Again you overlook the fact of our export growth to China. Do you really expect an economy 1/6 our size to import as much from us as we may import from them. Do you understand such a thing as a massive income gap which will close as their economy continues to improve. That is "bullish" U.S. exports to China. Wish as you may these events all take time. Not every piece of the puzzle fits every day.

Regarding # 4. Would you prefer they did not buy our debt and we owned their debt?

Regarding # 5. Yes the Yuan is undervalued but it is now being allowed to increase. At the same time the U.S dollar is "overvalued. An equilibrium will be attained sooner than you may think.

Regarding # 6. Were there not more Chinese peasants before low interest rates-gotcha? After record home ownership growth some slowdown should be anticipated. Most home loans are based on income and not assets. The higher interest rates will price some buyers out of the market temporarily until rates come down again, a natural and normal process. We are closer to lower interest rates than many realize.

Regarding # 7. You must be deaf and blind not to recognize the protectionist attitude developing under the guise of helping the American worker.

Regarding # 8. I do believe you read alot. Your time would be better spent actually doing some research on your own and dealing with factual events and results as opposed to fear, assumptions and authors biases. What I originally posted were actual results in the face of all the negatives which you cited. Are you getting the message? Results is what I care about. I will leave the rest to you to ponder.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
RoperAB said:
I dont know why you want to talk about Communist China? I started to read the article and then I got thinking, what does this have to do with anything?

All to get a short term gain so you can get elected. Agman applauded the capital surpluses we have in the world now, but it comes at the expense of the U.S. economy and the production of goods here.

It is unsustainable.

Fact, the U.S economy is the largest in the world at $12.6 trillion dollars soon to be $13 trillion. This massive economy is growing at a 3%-4% rate and its absolute annual growth is twice that of China. I quess our economy is really suffering!!!!!! It has been and remains the envy of the world.

The new Fed Chairman understands your comment "It is unsustainable"
so much so that he reminds himself he has heard the same for over 50 years... and the Energizer Bunny, the U.S. economy, just keeps on going. In short he has come to realize the RESULTS have never met the expectations of the naysayers. More importantly the naysayers have consistently been proved to be wrong. RESULTS... RESULTS..... that is what counts.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
RoperAB said:
I dont know why you want to talk about Communist China? I started to read the article and then I got thinking, what does this have to do with anything?

All to get a short term gain so you can get elected. Agman applauded the capital surpluses we have in the world now, but it comes at the expense of the U.S. economy and the production of goods here.

It is unsustainable.

Fact, the U.S economy is the largest in the world at $12.6 trillion dollars soon to be $13 trillion. This massive economy is growing at a 3%-4% rate and its absolute annual growth is twice that of China. I quess our economy is really suffering!!!!!! It has been and remains the envy of the world.

The new Fed Chairman understands your comment "It is unsustainable"
so much so that he reminds himself he has heard the same for over 50 years... and the Energizer Bunny, the U.S. economy, just keeps on going. In short he has come to realize the RESULTS have never met the expectations of the naysayers. More importantly the naysayers have consistently been proved to be wrong. RESULTS... RESULTS..... that is what counts.


On the bold text you and I could not agree more.

I was building a barn and I had a country boy helping me. I told him I wanted to build a very strong and sturdy barn out of the best materials, that I wanted it to last forever. His grandfather and great grandfather were from the area so he had deep deep roots in family homesteads. He looked at me and told me matter of factly, nothing lasts forever.
He was right. Nothing we build is sustainable in the end.

I am reminded also of my brother-in-laws house just outside of Wasthington D.C. The house was built when everyone was worried about nuclear war. It had huge and thick concrete walls. Both him and his wife were lamenting the fact that they could do nothing to make the house more comfortable because the thick concrete walls could not be moved.

The question isn't whether or not it is sustainable, because in the lifetime of my kid's rat, almost everything is. The question is does it give us what we want in the future. There are serious questions being raised about that right now. The status quo rarely endures.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Your attempt to impose your standards on other developing countries while noble is also short sighted. They are not us and we are not them; transitions take time especially in a country as populated as China. What we may view as cruel and demeaning they may view as a high standard of living and a vast improvement their former life style.

Econ: I am not imposing my standards on developing countries. I am wondering why the debt of the U.S. first of all being incurred, and secondly, why is it being bought by the savings of Chinese peasants, especially when we have a trade imbalance.

Regarding # 1. Yes there will always be some problems but your claim of lack of quality of jobs is just headline news. The facts do not bear out that some conclusion. There are some in every society who elect not to work. That is their problem not yours or mine.

Econ: Sometimes the headlines are right. I don't believe in paying the way for those who don't work, but I also don't believe those who have wealth should keep it by cheating others and bending the laws/rules/regulations in their favor.

Regarding #2. I quess we could go the way of France and for that matter Europe!! The very thing you cite as a problem I see as an advantage and it shows up in productivity.

Econ: Don't quote the other extreme to remain the opposite extreme.

Regarding #3. Again you overlook the fact of our export growth to China. Do you really expect an economy 1/6 our size to import as much from us as we may import from them. Do you understand such a thing as a massive income gap which will close as their economy continues to improve. That is "bullish" U.S. exports to China. Wish as you may these events all take time. Not every piece of the puzzle fits every day.

Econ: Yes. It really is funny that we are the consumers and they are the savers. It should really be the other way around until they catch up, don't you think?

Regarding # 4. Would you prefer they did not buy our debt and we owned their debt?

Econ: I would prefer that we stop incurring debt and pay it down. I am no democrat, but they were able to do it. Why can't republicans? They are in control of both houses. Is it a case of them wanting to listen to what they say they will do instead of see what they are doing? Again, dollar Bill put them to shame on this one. Come to think of it, dollar Bill listened to his military commanders on the Balkins and we are not having near the trouble we are having in Iraq.

Regarding # 5. Yes the Yuan is undervalued but it is now being allowed to increase. At the same time the U.S dollar is "overvalued. An equilibrium will be attained sooner than you may think.

Econ: The yuan has been held down for a long long time. How do you know this isn't the equilibrium wanted?

Regarding # 6. Were there not more Chinese peasants before low interest rates-gotcha? After record home ownership growth some slowdown should be anticipated. Most home loans are based on income and not assets. The higher interest rates will price some buyers out of the market temporarily until rates come down again, a natural and normal process. We are closer to lower interest rates than many realize.

Econ: Why should Chinese peasants subsidize our low interest rates with their capital inflows? Maybe the peasants aren't getting their part. It is the same with Mexico. I would rather some of them buy our products and fulfill the promised benefits of freer trade. Wouldn't you?

Regarding # 7. You must be deaf and blind not to recognize the protectionist attitude developing under the guise of helping the American worker.

Econ: And you must be deaf and blind to what these free trade agreements have done to the workforce and production in the United States. Re-read some of the history of the collapse of the Roman Empire. There are many similarities (no, not everything). Our standard of living is being brought down to the lowest common demoninator in the world with both global trade and unlimited immigration. I would rather people were able to make a good living in their own countries and me export what I produce best to them. It doesn't happen with economies that don't share the wealth with their population. Numbers show we are headed in that direction more than having a strong vigorous middle class. I am talking trends here, not absolutes.

Regarding # 8. I do believe you read alot. Your time would be better spent actually doing some research on your own and dealing with factual events and results as opposed to fear, assumptions and authors biases. What I originally posted were actual results in the face of all the negatives which you cited. Are you getting the message? Results is what I care about. I will leave the rest to you to ponder.

I do happen to be a positive person. My wife can always find better ways of me spending my time than you ever will, but thank you for your opinion. I believe you get better by working on your faults, not basking or bragging about your success. The former is more self improvement, the latter, improvement in the eyes of others. Integrity vs. the illusion of it. One is worldly, one is not. Some of the richest people I have known have not been wealthy, and some of the wealthiest people I have known have been the poorest.

The sky will not fall all at once. Mine is not a doomsday scenario, it is a scenario for a better future, not only for myself, but for my fellow man. It doesn't happen with the concentration of power and the limited opportunites that come from that system.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Your attempt to impose your standards on other developing countries while noble is also short sighted. They are not us and we are not them; transitions take time especially in a country as populated as China. What we may view as cruel and demeaning they may view as a high standard of living and a vast improvement their former life style.

Econ: I am not imposing my standards on developing countries. I am wondering why the debt of the U.S. first of all being incurred, and secondly, why is it being bought by the savings of Chinese peasants, especially when we have a trade imbalance.

Regarding # 1. Yes there will always be some problems but your claim of lack of quality of jobs is just headline news. The facts do not bear out that some conclusion. There are some in every society who elect not to work. That is their problem not yours or mine.

Econ: Sometimes the headlines are right. I don't believe in paying the way for those who don't work, but I also don't believe those who have wealth should keep it by cheating others and bending the laws/rules/regulations in their favor.

Regarding #2. I quess we could go the way of France and for that matter Europe!! The very thing you cite as a problem I see as an advantage and it shows up in productivity.

Econ: Don't quote the other extreme to remain the opposite extreme.

Regarding #3. Again you overlook the fact of our export growth to China. Do you really expect an economy 1/6 our size to import as much from us as we may import from them. Do you understand such a thing as a massive income gap which will close as their economy continues to improve. That is "bullish" U.S. exports to China. Wish as you may these events all take time. Not every piece of the puzzle fits every day.

Econ: Yes. It really is funny that we are the consumers and they are the savers. It should really be the other way around until they catch up, don't you think?

Regarding # 4. Would you prefer they did not buy our debt and we owned their debt?

Econ: I would prefer that we stop incurring debt and pay it down. I am no democrat, but they were able to do it. Why can't republicans? They are in control of both houses. Is it a case of them wanting to listen to what they say they will do instead of see what they are doing? Again, dollar Bill put them to shame on this one. Come to think of it, dollar Bill listened to his military commanders on the Balkins and we are not having near the trouble we are having in Iraq.

Regarding # 5. Yes the Yuan is undervalued but it is now being allowed to increase. At the same time the U.S dollar is "overvalued. An equilibrium will be attained sooner than you may think.

Econ: The yuan has been held down for a long long time. How do you know this isn't the equilibrium wanted?

Regarding # 6. Were there not more Chinese peasants before low interest rates-gotcha? After record home ownership growth some slowdown should be anticipated. Most home loans are based on income and not assets. The higher interest rates will price some buyers out of the market temporarily until rates come down again, a natural and normal process. We are closer to lower interest rates than many realize.

Econ: Why should Chinese peasants subsidize our low interest rates with their capital inflows? Maybe the peasants aren't getting their part. It is the same with Mexico. I would rather some of them buy our products and fulfill the promised benefits of freer trade. Wouldn't you?

Regarding # 7. You must be deaf and blind not to recognize the protectionist attitude developing under the guise of helping the American worker.

Econ: And you must be deaf and blind to what these free trade agreements have done to the workforce and production in the United States. Re-read some of the history of the collapse of the Roman Empire. There are many similarities (no, not everything). Our standard of living is being brought down to the lowest common demoninator in the world with both global trade and unlimited immigration. I would rather people were able to make a good living in their own countries and me export what I produce best to them. It doesn't happen with economies that don't share the wealth with their population. Numbers show we are headed in that direction more than having a strong vigorous middle class. I am talking trends here, not absolutes.

Regarding # 8. I do believe you read alot. Your time would be better spent actually doing some research on your own and dealing with factual events and results as opposed to fear, assumptions and authors biases. What I originally posted were actual results in the face of all the negatives which you cited. Are you getting the message? Results is what I care about. I will leave the rest to you to ponder.

I do happen to be a positive person. My wife can always find better ways of me spending my time than you ever will, but thank you for your opinion. I believe you get better by working on your faults, not basking or bragging about your success. The former is more self improvement, the latter, improvement in the eyes of others. Integrity vs. the illusion of it. One is worldly, one is not. Some of the richest people I have known have not been wealthy, and some of the wealthiest people I have known have been the poorest.

The sky will not fall all at once. Mine is not a doomsday scenario, it is a scenario for a better future, not only for myself, but for my fellow man. It doesn't happen with the concentration of power and the limited opportunites that come from that system.

Opportunities are limited only by ONESELF unless you expect that others have an obligation to care for and insure your future. The best advice is to always remember that our markets know no names nor do they distinguish by size. Markets know neither wealth nor poverty. You can be at either spectrum and end up at the other. All have an opportunity to succeed and/or fail. That is a good thing for all mankind. It is this freedom and opportunity that I choose to protect. agman
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Your attempt to impose your standards on other developing countries while noble is also short sighted. They are not us and we are not them; transitions take time especially in a country as populated as China. What we may view as cruel and demeaning they may view as a high standard of living and a vast improvement their former life style.

Econ: I am not imposing my standards on developing countries. I am wondering why the debt of the U.S. first of all being incurred, and secondly, why is it being bought by the savings of Chinese peasants, especially when we have a trade imbalance.

Regarding # 1. Yes there will always be some problems but your claim of lack of quality of jobs is just headline news. The facts do not bear out that some conclusion. There are some in every society who elect not to work. That is their problem not yours or mine.

Econ: Sometimes the headlines are right. I don't believe in paying the way for those who don't work, but I also don't believe those who have wealth should keep it by cheating others and bending the laws/rules/regulations in their favor.

Regarding #2. I quess we could go the way of France and for that matter Europe!! The very thing you cite as a problem I see as an advantage and it shows up in productivity.

Econ: Don't quote the other extreme to remain the opposite extreme.

Regarding #3. Again you overlook the fact of our export growth to China. Do you really expect an economy 1/6 our size to import as much from us as we may import from them. Do you understand such a thing as a massive income gap which will close as their economy continues to improve. That is "bullish" U.S. exports to China. Wish as you may these events all take time. Not every piece of the puzzle fits every day.

Econ: Yes. It really is funny that we are the consumers and they are the savers. It should really be the other way around until they catch up, don't you think?

Regarding # 4. Would you prefer they did not buy our debt and we owned their debt?

Econ: I would prefer that we stop incurring debt and pay it down. I am no democrat, but they were able to do it. Why can't republicans? They are in control of both houses. Is it a case of them wanting to listen to what they say they will do instead of see what they are doing? Again, dollar Bill put them to shame on this one. Come to think of it, dollar Bill listened to his military commanders on the Balkins and we are not having near the trouble we are having in Iraq.

Regarding # 5. Yes the Yuan is undervalued but it is now being allowed to increase. At the same time the U.S dollar is "overvalued. An equilibrium will be attained sooner than you may think.

Econ: The yuan has been held down for a long long time. How do you know this isn't the equilibrium wanted?

Regarding # 6. Were there not more Chinese peasants before low interest rates-gotcha? After record home ownership growth some slowdown should be anticipated. Most home loans are based on income and not assets. The higher interest rates will price some buyers out of the market temporarily until rates come down again, a natural and normal process. We are closer to lower interest rates than many realize.

Econ: Why should Chinese peasants subsidize our low interest rates with their capital inflows? Maybe the peasants aren't getting their part. It is the same with Mexico. I would rather some of them buy our products and fulfill the promised benefits of freer trade. Wouldn't you?

Regarding # 7. You must be deaf and blind not to recognize the protectionist attitude developing under the guise of helping the American worker.

Econ: And you must be deaf and blind to what these free trade agreements have done to the workforce and production in the United States. Re-read some of the history of the collapse of the Roman Empire. There are many similarities (no, not everything). Our standard of living is being brought down to the lowest common demoninator in the world with both global trade and unlimited immigration. I would rather people were able to make a good living in their own countries and me export what I produce best to them. It doesn't happen with economies that don't share the wealth with their population. Numbers show we are headed in that direction more than having a strong vigorous middle class. I am talking trends here, not absolutes.

Regarding # 8. I do believe you read alot. Your time would be better spent actually doing some research on your own and dealing with factual events and results as opposed to fear, assumptions and authors biases. What I originally posted were actual results in the face of all the negatives which you cited. Are you getting the message? Results is what I care about. I will leave the rest to you to ponder.

I do happen to be a positive person. My wife can always find better ways of me spending my time than you ever will, but thank you for your opinion. I believe you get better by working on your faults, not basking or bragging about your success. The former is more self improvement, the latter, improvement in the eyes of others. Integrity vs. the illusion of it. One is worldly, one is not. Some of the richest people I have known have not been wealthy, and some of the wealthiest people I have known have been the poorest.

The sky will not fall all at once. Mine is not a doomsday scenario, it is a scenario for a better future, not only for myself, but for my fellow man. It doesn't happen with the concentration of power and the limited opportunites that come from that system.

Opportunities are limited only by ONESELF unless you expect that others have an obligation to care for and insure your future. The best advice is to always remember that our markets know no names nor do they distinguish by size. Markets know neither wealth nor poverty. You can be at either spectrum and end up at the other. All have an opportunity to succeed and/or fail. That is a good thing for all mankind. It is this freedom and opportunity that I choose to protect. agman

Opportunities are limited by market power. That is why it is so important that it be erradicated. It is also limited by companies who flagrantly break the law and our system does not correct the damage done to others and to the markets. It seems we can enforce laws against blue collar crimes but not white collar crimes. That gives the white collars a comparative advantage. It should be eliminated so that opportunities are not decreased for some to the benefit of others.

Without the rule of law, even the Tyson's of the world would not be as successful. Tyson's just wants all laws to be enforced on others and not itself. It seems the republican appointed judges don't have enough integrity to understand this concept and instead want to bury the facts of the cases it wrongley decides.

Have you asked for the Pickett transcripts to be released yet, Agman, or are you looking the other way while it is being swept under the rug?
 

Happy go lucky

Well-known member
Our standard of living is being brought down to the lowest common demoninator in the world with both global trade and unlimited immigration. What? We have the highest standard of living of any country!

I agree with Agman, in the reguards that many people and company's find out that unions are not the savior of the american worker but a big downfall to being compative in a global market place. The highest things most companys have in exspenses is labor cost and benefits, with raw goods rising each year and not being able to cap wages/benefits for a small period as needed we force our product prices higher and we can not compete with other countries.

Most of these countries do not have freedom and democratcy and can make the product cheaper than we can in the US. People want value/quality and we look for it everytime we make a purchase. Wal Mart has taken this to another level. They price line all products to give better value or find other suppliers to be able to do so. There buying power and shear numbers of locations makes them a highly sought place to shop.

Land values in the US have risen to record highs both residential and AG ground has risen 9-14% annually, if I had a ton of money I would be buying up ground as it is one of the best investments going. Florida has 750 people a day moving there, want to make a fortune and retire early buy up ground in Florida as it is tracking around 15-19% annually, not too many places you can get that kind of yearly return on your money! The US is strong right now and yes NAFA has hurt aspects of the US economy but has helped in per captia spending as well. We americans for the most part don't sock our money away, we keep turning it over into the economy, we get better value on goods and that allows us to spend the savings on other ventures outside of needed items.

I fear higher taxes and higher cost on needed items is more of a downward player in our economy than anything else. As gas prices rise, housing taxes rise, vehicles cost increases we loose the ability to keep turning that money around into the economy, people look at these exspenses as "to do" payments and cuts into their spending capitol on many other things that help keep a robust economy in the US, taxes don't get spent on things that really help bolster new jobs or more product being made, like that of loose cash and people wanting to enjoy their lives. My .02
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
sandhusker i don't know if you're that unaware (to put it politely) or if you really don't stop to think about things. you respond to roperab that the per capita trade in your favour doesn't mean anything because in absolute dollars you have a trade deficit with a smaller country (canada) and you also have a trade deficit with china (which has a bigger population than usa) so population size is irrelevant. think about it, canada is a developed country with an economy similar to your own. china is less developed and is a low cost economy. take off the blinders and see how the world works. you and econ want to live in a country with arguably the highest standard of living in the world but not have to compete with less developed countries that have lower cost structures than yours. you're the ones who will lose because you're trying to deny logical economic forces. more developed economies have to concentrate on different goods and services that are more suited to taking advantage of the nature of the economic factors, generally higher tech production not dependent on extensive use of resources.

Don, you're blowing this way out of proportion and making something that isn't. I was simply pointing out the obvious - we have trade deficits with both Canada and China, our population is much larger than Canada's and China's is much larger than ours. Therefore, population is not an indicator of which side any trade imbalance can expected. That was all I was saying - pretty basic stuff.
 

don

Well-known member
so basic that your analysis was so shallow that it's totally invalid. can't believe that you're in finance with so little understanding of economics.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
China has been pretty aggressive with government owned businesses selling there junk over here.
Im just wondering if we are not trying to sell to them?
Example China has the worlds biggest population of smokers. The government in China actually encourages people to smoke over there.
You would think American tobbaco companies would be marketing themselves in China? Is there roadblocks preventing this?
They have no land for agriculture. Where are they getting their food from?
 
Top