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

Our Disappearing Economy

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Our Disappearing Economy
The problem for beef producers is that Bush is signing trade agreements with countries that don't want our beef but instead want to sell us beef. According to R-CALF, CAFTA countries export $53 million more in beef to the United States than the U.S. sells in the CAFTA countries. And they say those numbers will get more out of balance with the signing of CAFTA. National Farmer's Union President Dave Frederickson says, "The Central American countries under CAFTA, for example, have a combined population of about 31 million people with limited resources that could be used to purchase agricultural products. The CAFTA, and the U.S. trade agenda as a whole, seems more inclined to negotiate with countries that want increased access to U.S. markets rather than with countries interested in buying more U.S. agricultural products, Meanwhile, we will see a flood of new imports of sugar, fruit, vegetables, ethanol and other commodities." And beef, we might add.

In a press conference Agriculture Secretary Johanns said that CAFTA would benefit U.S. agriculture because it would reduce tariffs on U.S. products exported to those countries and lock those reductions into place. When asked about the potential for beef imports under CAFTA, Johanns quickly switched the topic to sugar.

The U.S. Chamber claims that CAFTA will create 20,000 U.S. jobs in its first year and 100,000 jobs over its first nine years. But we heard those same rosy projections for employment gains after NAFTA yet we have experienced net job losses during the decade of free trade. "We heard the same projections about new jobs and economic gains from NAFTA, and now a decade later we know these were lies," said Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch. "Here's the same source using the same fraudulent methodology to try to sell us old NAFTA wine in new CAFTA bottles."

The only one these trade agreements benefit are large multinational corporations who can exploit cheaper labor and input costs. The citizens in NAFTA countries have not benefitted: 1.5 million Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods due to NAFTA and Guatemala had to use their military and police to employ cannons, tear gas, beatings and other tactics to quash demonstrations there against CAFTA.

CAFTA looked like a shoo-in when it was written but its future is now in doubt because Americans are starting to understand that workers, ranchers and citizens have come up on the short-end in trade deals. We are starting to see troubling signs in the "disappearing" U.S. economy and the exploding trade deficit. While Bush says that America's increasing dependence on imported goods and services is evidence of the strength of the U.S. economy others see it as transferring of our wealth and our children's future to foreigners who have acquired $3.6 trillion of U.S. assets since 1990 as a result of our trade deficits. What happens when those countries no longer want to assume our debt? Japan has already lost $109.6 billion on their investment in America debt instruments. How much more of that action do you think they want? A study by the Bank of International Settlements concluded that "the ratio of dollar reserves held in Asia declined from 81 percent in the third quarter of 2001 to 67 percent in September 2004. India reduced its dollar holdings from 68 percent of total reserves to 43 percent. China reduced its dollar holdings from 83 percent to 68 percent." That spells trouble ahead for our debtor nation. Perhaps Bush ought to be working more on this social insecurity!

"There is no better example that our trade policy isn't working than the fact that for the first time in nearly a half-century the U.S. will import more agriculture products than we export," says NFU's Frederickson. He says CAFTA resembles failed trade policies of the past that further encourage a "race to the bottom" for producers.

When historians look back 30 years from now they will see that the future of the livestock industry was determined in the pivotal year of 2005. The vote on CAFTA and its effect on subsequent trade agreements, the Pickett case, BSE, the Canadian border situation, the Supreme Court's decision on the checkoff (and the bucks that have empowered the NCBA), all these will decide the future direction of the livestock industry for decades. If ranchers lose these skirmishes and become victims of that giant sucking sound too, we wonder if they'll see the irony in that they were put out of business by a Texas President who has a ranch and wears a cowboy hat and boots.
 

Casa Paloma

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Well said! Again, owning a ranch and wearing a hat and boots certainly doesn't make you a cattleman. I'm certainly not a Democrat, but don't believe this administration really gives a damn about our trade situation.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Historical economic lows in our economy have been coupled with lower volumes of trade. Make sure you know what you're wishing for.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
HAY MAKER said:
Our Disappearing Economy
The problem for beef producers is that Bush is signing trade agreements case, BSE, the Canadian border situation, the Supreme Court's decision on the checkoff (and the bucks that have empowered the NCBA), all these will decide the future direction of the livestock industry for decades. If ranchers lose these skirmishes and become victims of that giant sucking sound too, we wonder if they'll see the irony in that they were put out of business by a Texas President who has a ranch and wears a cowboy hat and boots.

Haymaker, I do hope you live for a few more years, at least, so that you will be able to eat those words about this president.

We have all seen how factually challenged you can be and you demonstrate it yet again when you claim that NCBA is "empowered" by checkoff dollars in policy areas. Surely you know by now that checkoff money cannot and IS NOT used for any lobbying or policy work in NCBA or anywhere else. How can you fail to understand that when a contract is executed on a cost recovery only basis, as all Beef Checkoff contracts are, that there is no gain to the contract holder?

MRJ
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
MRJ said:
HAY MAKER said:
Our Disappearing Economy
The problem for beef producers is that Bush is signing trade agreements case, BSE, the Canadian border situation, the Supreme Court's decision on the checkoff (and the bucks that have empowered the NCBA), all these will decide the future direction of the livestock industry for decades. If ranchers lose these skirmishes and become victims of that giant sucking sound too, we wonder if they'll see the irony in that they were put out of business by a Texas President who has a ranch and wears a cowboy hat and boots.

Haymaker, I do hope you live for a few more years, at least, so that you will be able to eat those words about this president.

We have all seen how factually challenged you can be and you demonstrate it yet again when you claim that NCBA is "empowered" by checkoff dollars in policy areas. Surely you know by now that checkoff money cannot and IS NOT used for any lobbying or policy work in NCBA or anywhere else. How can you fail to understand that when a contract is executed on a cost recovery only basis, as all Beef Checkoff contracts are, that there is no gain to the contract holder?

MRJ



MRJ,at 57 and in perfect health I plan on livin till IM 90 and havin some jealous husband shoot me off a bar stool,thanks for your concern I believe you are the one that is factually challenged,anyone that believes these trade agreements are good for the cattle man is wrong,I read your post where you are hawking the benefits of american beef going south,tourists etc.I can guarantee you I could haul all the beef their tourists can use in the back of my pickup weekly.Packers got you brain washed and or senility is settin in on you at 69 years old I believe you should slow down a bit.Enjoy life more take long naps and forget about these wild trade schemes with poverty stricken countries.............good luck
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,982
Reaction score
81
Location
Big Muddy valley
HAY MAKER said:
MRJ said:
HAY MAKER said:
Our Disappearing Economy
The problem for beef producers is that Bush is signing trade agreements case, BSE, the Canadian border situation, the Supreme Court's decision on the checkoff (and the bucks that have empowered the NCBA), all these will decide the future direction of the livestock industry for decades. If ranchers lose these skirmishes and become victims of that giant sucking sound too, we wonder if they'll see the irony in that they were put out of business by a Texas President who has a ranch and wears a cowboy hat and boots.

Haymaker, I do hope you live for a few more years, at least, so that you will be able to eat those words about this president.

We have all seen how factually challenged you can be and you demonstrate it yet again when you claim that NCBA is "empowered" by checkoff dollars in policy areas. Surely you know by now that checkoff money cannot and IS NOT used for any lobbying or policy work in NCBA or anywhere else. How can you fail to understand that when a contract is executed on a cost recovery only basis, as all Beef Checkoff contracts are, that there is no gain to the contract holder?

MRJ



MRJ,at 57 and in perfect health I plan on livin till IM 90 and havin some jealous husband shoot me off a bar stool,thanks for your concern I believe you are the one that is factually challenged,anyone that believes these trade agreements are good for the cattle man is wrong,I read your post where you are hawking the benefits of american beef going south,tourists etc.I can guarantee you I could haul all the beef their tourists can use in the back of my pickup weekly.Packers got you brain washed and or senility is settin in on you at 69 years old I believe you should slow down a bit.Enjoy life more take long naps and forget about these wild trade schemes with poverty stricken countries.............good luck


Haymaker keep it up and somebody might shoot you off your barstool by age 58. :cowboy:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As an Independent I voted for GW- wasn't much other choice-- still support him on many issues and am glad we have a President with good moral character....But I predict that his unbending pro big business economical direction, trade deficits, evergrowing US budget deficit, and continuing support of trade agreements at the loss of US jobs and income, - many of which are opposed by both most liberals and many conservatives will, along with the Liberal attack against the Iraq war lead to the ultimate disaster for the US-- Hillary will walk into office in 98 on the coattails of what GW left dragging........Then God help us all......
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Oldtimer has made one more post
This one as depressing as most
Gloom and doom coming down the wire
The consequences of all things are dire
But one thing that must really blow
Old GW's economy just won't slow
One thing more to make a fuss
All other nations are poorer than us
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal- just for giggles-- who do you think will be GW's successor?.....
 

BevM

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
western SD
I think she would be allr ight and if not her some other woman but she is next in line and she certainly couldn't be any worse than Bush for sure.
While i am on here MRJ what do you think of the closing of Ellsworth and i know it isn't a done deal but it might very well be and i think now we should have had Daschle in there yet.
I am not saying he could have done it all but boy it would have helped.
As out one local station said this morning this does not make Thune look that great since he said he had a key to the white house or something to that sort. A frshman senator does not have much clout no matter what as far as i am concerned.
This will not be the ruin of SD but it sure won't help. We needed all the clout we could stand and everyone let outside money tlak for us.
Ok enough for the politics from me as i really don't even like talking about them
I agree the economy is sinking fast under this administration and the trade agreements do not help ag one bit.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Oldtimer said:
Cal- just for giggles-- who do you think will be GW's successor?.....

I'll start by saying I don't think it will be McCain or Guiliani, and Condi isn't interested in the Presidency, but think she'll at least consider VP. Let me get back to you on it. So who's your pick?
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
BevM said:
While i am on here MRJ what do you think of the closing of Ellsworth and i know it isn't a done deal but it might very well be and i think now we should have had Daschle in there yet.
I am not saying he could have done it all but boy it would have helped.
As out one local station said this morning this does not make Thune look that great since he said he had a key to the white house or something to that sort. A frshman senator does not have much clout no matter what as far as i am concerned.
I agree the economy is sinking fast under this administration and the trade agreements do not help ag one bit.
Bev, to start with, what makes you think that the future closing of bases isn't being done by needs assessment? I haven't read the RCJ for a while now, but wasn't there a coalition between Ellsworth and the now dismantled missile silos? For maintenance and oversight? I've heard libs on the radio talking about how the closing of bases will be political, but far be it from them to offer up any proof.

Secondly, I would like you to back up your statement "I agree the economy is sinking fast under this administration and the trade agreements do not help ag on bit." Can you post some good hard evidence to back up your claim?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal said:
Oldtimer said:
Cal- just for giggles-- who do you think will be GW's successor?.....

I'll start by saying I don't think it will be McCain or Guiliani, and Condi isn't interested in the Presidency, but think she'll at least consider VP. Let me get back to you on it. So who's your pick?

Cal- I totally agree with you....And I think the frontrunner right now has to be Hillary :cry: :mad: ...Dems are already grooming and protecting her and the Repubs don't even have anyone in the starting block- nobody runable, except Condi, stayed into the second term- and it won't be Jeb... 3 years to bring someone forward- but the Delay and other Rep. ethics questions are keeping things slow for toprunners coming off the Hill- many may be just running to save their butts-- Border Security and border issues are becoming very prominent....Congressional races may show if their really is a backlash happening in the country... Just like whats happening with CAFTA--It may not be that bad a deal- BUT so many are disappointed with NAFTA and the failure of many of its promises, that it and future trade agreements are going to meet stiff opposition........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Northern Rancher said:
If Hilary get in will Bill say 'I did not have sex with that woman' lol.

NR- You may have just asked the million dollar question--I'm curious how she's going to present herself in the months to come before election-- the image of the loving wife like nothing happened-- or the forgiver--or keep herself as far away from Bill as possible....It will be interesting....
 

BevM

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
western SD
Cal as someone put it on the news the other night that we should not have all our B-ones in one place as they did with the navy in WW2 as they were all at Perl i guess. I think it was a veteran that said that. Of course they are going to Bushes home state.
Waht about closing Walter Reed hospital when this is where most of teh soldiers come home ot from Iraq so that is a slap in the face for sure.
Yes Ellsworth had something to do with the missles during the cold war and then they closed them out with government money being wasted again.
anyway guess what will be will be and we sure can't do much about it but as i stated before it sure would have helped to keep Daschle in there and not listen to all the outside money from the Moral majority.
Ok as i said i am not into politics that much so dont know why i even get on here so will get off before i say something that is not welcome. As for CAFTA and NAFTA guess i will leave that to you Cal and everyone else that knows more than i do.
HAve a good one and enjoy teh sunshine finally. :?
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
This was on the Dept of Defense website. Does anyone really see the closing of some millitary and medical instillations and increasing the size of others to save many billions of dollars as political? Notice the base closings in TX?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BRAC 2005: Closings, Realignments to Reshape Infrastructure
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, May 13, 2005 – The Defense Department has recommended closing 33 major bases and realigning 29 others as part of a comprehensive reshaping of the military infrastructure through the base realignment and closure process.
Michael Wynne, defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, announced Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's closure and realignment recommendations at a Pentagon news conference today.

The recommendations now go to the BRAC Commission chaired by former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi. The commission will start hearings on the specific recommendations May 16.

If adopted, the recommendations would give DoD a net savings of almost $50 billion over 20 years, officials said. Annual savings are pegged at $5.5 billion a year after that.

Fourteen major Army bases are recommended for closure, including Forts Gillem and McPherson in Atlanta; Fort Monroe, Va.; Fort Monmouth, N.J.; and the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant and Red River Army Depot in Texas.

Nine major Navy bases will close, including Submarine Base, New London, Conn.; Willow Grove Naval Air Station, Pa.; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine; Naval Station Pascagoula, Miss.; and Naval Air Station Atlanta.

Ten major Air Force installations are closing, including Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.; Onizuka Air Force Station, Calif.; Cannon Air Force Base, N.M.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; and Brooks City Base, Texas.

DoD defines major realignments as installations losing at least 400 people. The five major Army realignments are Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington; the Rock Island Arsenal, Ill.; Fort Knox, Ky.; and Fort Eustis, Va.; and the Army Reserve Personnel Center in St. Louis.

Eleven Navy realignments include Naval Station Great Lakes, Ill.; Naval Station San Diego; and naval air stations in Brunswick, Maine, Corpus Christi, Texas, and Pensacola, Fla. The Marine Corps Logistics Base in Barstow, Calif., also will realign, as will the naval medical centers in Portsmouth, Va., and San Diego.

Ten major Air Force realignments include Eielson and Elmendorf Air Force bases, both in Alaska; Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.; Lackland and Sheppard Air Force bases, Texas; and McChord Air Force Base, Wash.

DoD agencies in leased spaces throughout the National Capital Area and Defense Finance and Accounting Service offices in Cleveland and in Arlington, Va., face major realignment actions as well.

Forty-nine installations are gaining more than 400 personnel. The Army made provision for units reassigned from Europe and the Pacific. The major gainers in the Army are Fort Belvoir, Va.; Fort Jackson, S.C.; Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Fort Sill, Okla.; Fort Benning, Ga.; and Fort Bragg, N.C.

Navy gainers include Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla.; Naval Station Norfolk, Va.; Naval Station Newport, R.I.; Marine Corps Logistics Base Quantico, Va.; and Naval Station Bremerton, Wash.

Air Force gainers include Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark.; Peterson Air Force Base, Colo.; Scott Air Force Base, Ill.; Andrews Air Force Base, Md.; and Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

The bases themselves are only part of the story. This BRAC process had seven joint cross-service groups to examine common business processes in education and training; headquarters and support; technical; industrial; supply and storage; intelligence; and medical.

Wynne said jointness - services working together -- was key to creating military value, and military value was the most important consideration as the BRAC process progressed.

"These joint cross-service groups were key to making this jointness a reality in this process," Wynne said. "They each were chaired by a senior executive or flag officer, with representation from each of the military services, from the Joint Staff and from the relevant defense agencies involved."

More than half of the future annual savings $2.9 billion of the estimated $5.5 billion is generated from the joint cross-service groups, officials said.

Related Sites:
Base Realignment and Closure
BRAC 2005: DoD Uses Process to Revamp Medical System
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
As an Independent I voted for GW- wasn't much other choice-- still support him on many issues and am glad we have a President with good moral character....But I predict that his unbending pro big business economical direction, trade deficits, evergrowing US budget deficit, and continuing support of trade agreements at the loss of US jobs and income, - many of which are opposed by both most liberals and many conservatives will, along with the Liberal attack against the Iraq war lead to the ultimate disaster for the US-- Hillary will walk into office in 98 on the coattails of what GW left dragging........Then God help us all......

Response....I see you are again just focusing on so called negatives. I have a few basic questions which you obviously must know the answer too or you could not otherwise express a valid concern or opinion.

How many years in the last 50 years has the U.S.been in a trade deficit, fiscal deficit or both? What is the present size of our economy? How much has it grown in the last 50 years? As a percentage of GDP where do both the current trade deficit and fiscal deficit rank? You are aware of the pitfalls of attempting to skew data by using absolute numbers for comparison. During that same period what has been the rate of economic growth, job gains, total employment and income growth in the U.S. How many net jobs have been lost when insourcing, the other side of outsourcing, is taken into consideration? Which countries that have a trade surplus create more jobs, income and economic growth than the U.S. Can you provide any history where protectionism has not been a precursor to economic decline for those countries involved? Can you name any country that is aggressively involved in open and free trade that has suffered economic decline. Do you know the role of protectionist policy and its role in the Great Depression? Many prominent economists argue protectionism ( Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) was the root cause of the Great Depression.

If your observation and resultant conclusions from reported so-called negative news is correct how do you in the end explain all the longterm positive growth in the U.S. economy? Could it be that you are constantly looking at the wrong information? The years of econimic growth have proven the doomsday folks wrong for how many decades? Why has our economy not collapsed under all the negative news as you observe? Why is the U.S economy the envy of the world? These are but a few simple and pertinent questions which one must know the correct answers too in order to express any meaningful opinion regrading our economic past, present and future. In closing, the sun shines everday, most people rejoice while others just complain about sunburn.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
As an Independent I voted for GW- wasn't much other choice-- still support him on many issues and am glad we have a President with good moral character....But I predict that his unbending pro big business economical direction, trade deficits, evergrowing US budget deficit, and continuing support of trade agreements at the loss of US jobs and income, - many of which are opposed by both most liberals and many conservatives will, along with the Liberal attack against the Iraq war lead to the ultimate disaster for the US-- Hillary will walk into office in 98 on the coattails of what GW left dragging........Then God help us all......

Response....I see you are again just focusing on so called negatives. I have a few basic questions which you obviously must know the answer too or you could not otherwise express a valid concern or opinion.

How many years in the last 50 years has the U.S.been in a trade deficit, fiscal deficit or both? What is the present size of our economy? How much has it grown in the last 50 years? As a percentage of GDP where do both the current trade deficit and fiscal deficit rank? You are aware of the pitfalls of attempting to skew data by using absolute numbers for comparison. During that same period what has been the rate of economic growth, job gains, total employment and income growth in the U.S. How many net jobs have been lost when insourcing, the other side of outsourcing, is taken into consideration? Which countries that have a trade surplus create more jobs, income and economic growth than the U.S. Can you provide any history where protectionism has not been a precursor to economic decline for those countries involved? Can you name any country that is aggressively involved in open and free trade that has suffered economic decline. Do you know the role of protectionist policy and its role in the Great Depression? Many prominent economists argue protectionism ( Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) was the root cause of the Great Depression.

If your observation and resultant conclusions from reported so-called negative news is correct how do you in the end explain all the longterm positive growth in the U.S. economy? Could it be that you are constantly looking at the wrong information? The years of econimic growth have proven the doomsday folks wrong for how many decades? Why has our economy not collapsed under all the negative news as you observe? Why is the U.S economy the envy of the world? These are but a few simple and pertinent questions which one must know the correct answers too in order to express any meaningful opinion regrading our economic past, present and future. In closing, the sun shines everday, most people rejoice while others just complain about sunburn.

Agman- Not being a bean counter I do not have those figures-- but I do know when the local economy is good and when it is bad--something maybe some in the penthouse offices don't see as much....NAFTA was not good to many in the US rural community- or the US blue collar worker-- so its hard to put faith in all the other "AFTA's"...Also the switch nation wide from a producing country to a service country is not raising the standard of living- we have less haves and more have nots--100+ year old ranches that are being sold for hunting and vacation estates for the rich... Its only my opinion- but If the Republican party doesn't get their head out of their b*tt and quit blindly following the corporate worlds sending all business and production overseas- while giving up our nations food production to develop third world countrys, it will create a big enough rift internally that Hillary will do like Bill did to Bush 1-- walk in unchallenged--and it will not even take a Ross Perot to do it.......You can't say no, or wait, forever to the middleclass without getting a backlash....Remember their is a huge group in this country that are not like you that have a Republican party ID number tattoed on your forearm-they swing as the pendulum swings--And like I said before it could open things wide open for Hilary (God forbid).......
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
As an Independent I voted for GW- wasn't much other choice-- still support him on many issues and am glad we have a President with good moral character....But I predict that his unbending pro big business economical direction, trade deficits, evergrowing US budget deficit, and continuing support of trade agreements at the loss of US jobs and income, - many of which are opposed by both most liberals and many conservatives will, along with the Liberal attack against the Iraq war lead to the ultimate disaster for the US-- Hillary will walk into office in 98 on the coattails of what GW left dragging........Then God help us all......

Response....I see you are again just focusing on so called negatives. I have a few basic questions which you obviously must know the answer too or you could not otherwise express a valid concern or opinion.

How many years in the last 50 years has the U.S.been in a trade deficit, fiscal deficit or both? What is the present size of our economy? How much has it grown in the last 50 years? As a percentage of GDP where do both the current trade deficit and fiscal deficit rank? You are aware of the pitfalls of attempting to skew data by using absolute numbers for comparison. During that same period what has been the rate of economic growth, job gains, total employment and income growth in the U.S. How many net jobs have been lost when insourcing, the other side of outsourcing, is taken into consideration? Which countries that have a trade surplus create more jobs, income and economic growth than the U.S. Can you provide any history where protectionism has not been a precursor to economic decline for those countries involved? Can you name any country that is aggressively involved in open and free trade that has suffered economic decline. Do you know the role of protectionist policy and its role in the Great Depression? Many prominent economists argue protectionism ( Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) was the root cause of the Great Depression.

If your observation and resultant conclusions from reported so-called negative news is correct how do you in the end explain all the longterm positive growth in the U.S. economy? Could it be that you are constantly looking at the wrong information? The years of econimic growth have proven the doomsday folks wrong for how many decades? Why has our economy not collapsed under all the negative news as you observe? Why is the U.S economy the envy of the world? These are but a few simple and pertinent questions which one must know the correct answers too in order to express any meaningful opinion regrading our economic past, present and future. In closing, the sun shines everday, most people rejoice while others just complain about sunburn.

Agman- Not being a bean counter I do not have those figures--

Response: You said it all OT-you simply do not have enough data at hand to draw a valid opinion. Therefore you respond to perception and here-say. I need not say anymore. Thanks for your honesty regarding your lack of valid and basic economic information and real understanding of such information.
 

Latest posts

Top