Obama's trip to India

[Rick]

nations don't normaly have 50 50 trade...and 50% would be more then alot of nations. And they don't have to be...and when there not...you can do more to make them more equal...you don't cry about it and just say well its not perfect so don't try.

The point zipped past you at Mach 3. BigRob suggested that obozo kiss their ass because they are/will buy so much from us, when in fact it's just the opposite and will get worse, as the US declines (due to leftwing extremism, the effects of the illegal alien invasion, our titantic debt, "affirmative action", etc etc) and the asian heartland rises.

 

[BigRob]

The point zipped past you at Mach 3. BigRob suggested that obozo kiss their ass because they are/will buy so much from us, when in fact it's just the opposite and will get worse, as the US declines (due to leftwing extremism, the effects of the illegal alien invasion, our titantic debt, "affirmative action", etc etc) and the asian heartland rises.

Promoting international trade does not mean we "kiss anyone's ass."

Your assertion that they do not buy a lot from us is simply false...and despite your partisan hatred of the President, surely you can admit that expanding trade with one of the fastest growing economies in the world is something he ought to be focused on.

Additionally, your state that "in fact it's just the opposite (that they buy/will buy) from us, and it will get worse." Please provide evidence for this claim...because the actual numbers do not support it.

 

[Rick]

So you are mad that they import less from us than we do from them... and you are then mad again at President Obama for going to India to try to increase our exports to them....

Don't put words in my mouth - obozo's ass-kissing won't affect anything about the trade balance, which follows only implacable economic laws. It will get much worse, like american society in general, due to a whole raft of damaging leftwing policies.

Additionally, who cares if there is a trade imbalance? Trade imbalances are irrelevant in my opinion from an economic standpoint.

The problem with trade deficits is what they are symptomatic of: growing unemployment, decreased national competitiveness and wealth, loss of power, increased national debt.

 

[Rick]

Promoting international trade does not mean we "kiss anyone's ass."

Obozo isn't "promoting national trade" - he doesn't know anything about it. The only think he's good at is going to foreign countries, running down the US, and kissing foreigners' asses. The Times of India commented that obozo as much as admitted to US decline from all his statements while in india.

Your assertion that they do not buy a lot from us is simply false...and despite your partisan hatred of the President, surely you can admit that expanding trade with one of the fastest growing economies in the world is something he ought to be focused on.

The stats are there - they export 50% more to us. Things like software, that ten years ago people would laugh at if you suggested it would be imported from india by the US.

Additionally, your state that "in fact it's just the opposite (that they buy/will buy) from us, and it will get worse." Please provide evidence for this claim...because the actual numbers do not support it.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PLC1]

Obozo isn't "promoting national trade" - he doesn't know anything about it. The only think he's good at is going to foreign countries, running down the US, and kissing foreigners' asses. The Times of India commented that obozo as much as admitted to US decline from all his statements while in india.



The stats are there - they export 50% more to us. Things like software, that ten years ago people would laugh at if you suggested it would be imported from india by the US.




You simply don't know what you're talking about.

"You simply don't know what you're talking about." followed by a graph showing that balance of trade has been getting worse since the late '80s or so, is not evidence that Obama's trip to India is going to make the balance even less favorable. I gave you a concrete, specific example of how the trip will increase exports to India from the USA, but, that was just empirical evidence, and so has no effect on your opinion at all.

 

[Rick]

"You simply don't know what you're talking about." followed by a graph showing that balance of trade has been getting worse since the late '80s or so, is not evidence that Obama's trip to India is going to make the balance even less favorable.

I never claimed that - I said it won't make any difference. And it was in response to your statement:

Additionally, your state that "in fact it's just the opposite (that they buy/will buy) from us, and it will get worse." Please provide evidence for this claim...because the actual numbers do not support it.

.....is clearly false. The facts refute you and support me.

I gave you a concrete, specific example of how the trip will increase exports to India from the USA, but, that was just empirical evidence, and so has no effect on your opinion at all.

Your claim is naive and unschooled - the indians will do what is in india's interest as perceived by indians - an obozo photo-op trip, taken principally to change the topic from his massive election defeat, wil;l have no effect whatsoever.

 

[BigRob]

Obozo isn't "promoting national trade" - he doesn't know anything about it. The only think he's good at is going to foreign countries, running down the US, and kissing foreigners' asses. The Times of India commented that obozo as much as admitted to US decline from all his statements while in india.

The stats are there - they export 50% more to us. Things like software, that ten years ago people would laugh at if you suggested it would be imported from india by the US.

Bilateral trade deficits are completely irrelevant according to most mainstream economists... they just make the argument that the overall trade deficit matters, but to a certain extent....

Adam Smith said it best when he said, "Nothing is more absurd than this doctrine of the balance of trade." Now why do you think he said that? Think about it.

There are no "countries" in trade, there are just people. The "stats" for each country are just arbitrary based on who happens to live where, which is an irrelevant factor. If tomorrow Japan became the 51st state, we would no longer be aware of any trade deficit or surplus involving it and the United States. Does the boundary between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, make any difference to the residents of those cities, except for any obstacles governments create? What is the trade picture between Texas and Oklahoma... do you care? If you believe trade imbalances and deficits are bad, then you should.

Few facts:

1) When two people trade with each other, there are facts that we can be absolutely sure of. First fact: each wants what the other gives up. Second fact: each places a higher value on the thing obtained than on the thing surrendered. Third fact: each comes out ahead; that is, each garners a trade surplus.

2) Nations do not trade with each other, people trade with each other. Nations are collections of people who happen to live under the jurisdiction of the same national government. They do not act in concert in their economic affairs.

3) If the balance of trade doesn't matter at the personal, neighborhood, or city level, it doesn't matter at the national level.

4) Imagine a trade deficit of $10. What happens then? The nation (India for example) sold us $10 less stuff and now has $10 in cash they need to do something with. What can they do with it?

A) Take it out of circulation: Ok.. who cares? All that does is make the money left in circulation that much more valuable...(ie.. you get better off)

B) Invest that money: To do this they are going to have to either convert the money (the person who buys it is then presented with the same problems), or invest in a place where dollars are accepted.. (most notably America). That investment brings the money back the US economy and puts it right back to work.

The point being.. bilateral trade imbalances are completely irrelevant and do not result in any long term form of what you are indicating...your whole premise of "they are selling us what was unheard of 10 years ago" is complete lunacy...who cares what they sell us? Under your viewpoint it appears that each country should be delegated to making a certain thing and nothing can ever change... sorry but real world economics simply does not work in such a manner.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Nor does Adam Smith apparently.

 

[BigRob]

Your claim is naive and unschooled - the indians will do what is in india's interest as perceived by indians - an obozo photo-op trip, taken principally to change the topic from his massive election defeat, wil;l have no effect whatsoever.

And Texans will do what is in Texas' best interest to the detriment of Oklahoma...and you will not worry a bit about that "bilateral trade deficit"... if they matter, they matter everywhere.. you cannot have it both ways.

 

[Rick]

Bilateral trade deficits are completely irrelevant according to most mainstream economists... they just make the argument that the overall trade deficit matters, but to a certain extent....

Adam Smith said it best when he said, "Nothing is more absurd than this doctrine of the balance of trade." Now why do you think he said that? Think about it.

There are no "countries" in trade, there are just people. The "stats" for each country are just arbitrary based on who happens to live where, which is an irrelevant factor. If tomorrow Japan became the 51st state, we would no longer be aware of any trade deficit or surplus involving it and the United States. Does the boundary between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, make any difference to the residents of those cities, except for any obstacles governments create? What is the trade picture between Texas and Oklahoma... do you care? If you believe trade imbalances and deficits are bad, then you should.

Few facts:

1) When two people trade with each other, there are facts that we can be absolutely sure of. First fact: each wants what the other gives up. Second fact: each places a higher value on the thing obtained than on the thing surrendered. Third fact: each comes out ahead; that is, each garners a trade surplus.

2) Nations do not trade with each other, people trade with each other. Nations are collections of people who happen to live under the jurisdiction of the same national government. They do not act in concert in their economic affairs.

3) If the balance of trade doesn't matter at the personal, neighborhood, or city level, it doesn't matter at the national level.

4) Imagine a trade deficit of $10. What happens then? The nation (India for example) sold us $10 less stuff and now has $10 in cash they need to do something with. What can they do with it?

A) Take it out of circulation: Ok.. who cares? All that does is make the money left in circulation that much more valuable...(ie.. you get better off)

B) Invest that money: To do this they are going to have to either convert the money (the person who buys it is then presented with the same problems), or invest in a place where dollars are accepted.. (most notably America). That investment brings the money back the US economy and puts it right back to work.

The point being.. bilateral trade imbalances are completely irrelevant and do not result in any long term form of what you are indicating...your whole premise of "they are selling us what was unheard of 10 years ago" is complete lunacy...who cares what they sell us? Under your viewpoint it appears that each country should be delegated to making a certain thing and nothing can ever change... sorry but real world economics simply does not work in such a manner.




Nor does Adam Smith apparently.

Adam Smith lived before the welfare state existed. The above picture is incredibly simplistic in ignoring the nation states wherein the deficits exist. When people are massively unemployed in the US because we don't sell anything anymore, it's not Japan who sends out the unemployment checks - it's US state and local governments. They get that money by raising taxes and/or creating national deficits. Next you'll tell me those don't matter either.
When economic activity declines, so does the revenue of government, causing cutbacks in government services - eg now, they're talking about such things as raising the social security eligibily age. If obamacare doesn't get overturned, less government money will be available for THAT, making the rationing even more severe. Yes, Virginia, trade deficits matter.

 

[Rick]

And Texans will do what is in Texas' best interest to the detriment of Oklahoma...and you will not worry a bit about that "bilateral trade deficit"... if they matter, they matter everywhere.. you cannot have it both ways.

I didn't say trade per se involves detriment to the participants. How about stop debating yourself?

 

[BigRob]

Adam Smith lived before the welfare state existed. The above picture is incredibly simplistic in ignoring the nation states wherein the deficits exist. When people are massively unemployed in the US because we don't sell anything anymore, it's not Japan who sends out the unemployment checks - it's US state and local governments.

Trade imbalances do not create domestic unemployment in any major way. We have had a negative imbalance in terms of trade for many years... many of which we saw low unemployment and a booming economy.

They get that money by raising taxes and/or creating national deficits. Next you'll tell me those don't matter either.

I will not tell you that national deficits don't matter.. however many prominent Republicans will.

When economic activity declines, so does the revenue of government, causing cutbacks in government services - eg now, they're talking about such things as raising the social security eligibily age.

I don't disagree that when economic activity declines, the revenue of government does as well... but bilateral trade imbalances are not the cause of reduced economic activity.

If obamacare doesn't get overturned, less government money will be available for THAT, making the rationing even more severe. Yes, Virginia, trade deficits matter.

Obamacare will not get overturned.. unfortunately. That said, if you are worried about trade imbalances, you ought to love the idea of printing money and devaluing the dollar... since that will increase American exports and close the "trade imbalance."

 

[BigRob]

I didn't say trade per se involves detriment to the participants. How about stop debating yourself?

No, you just said the wrong amount of trade involves a detriment to the participants... which in essence means that should apply to state/local levels as well.

Additionally, look at this scenario..

Imagine there are three countries.. the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Imagine that the US sells $100 in goods to Mexico, which sells $100 in goods to Canada, which sells $100 in goods to the US.

The US will have a $100 trade imbalance with Canada, but that is meaningless in terms of overall trade, and certainly will does not equate to diminished economic activity in the US because of it.

 

[Rick]

No, you just said the wrong amount of trade involves a detriment to the participants... which in essence means that should apply to state/local levels as well.

Wrong - most of the welfare state is at the national level.

Additionally, look at this scenario..

Imagine there are three countries.. the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Imagine that the US sells $100 in goods to Mexico, which sells $100 in goods to Canada, which sells $100 in goods to the US.

The US will have a $100 trade imbalance with Canada, but that is meaningless in terms of overall trade, and certainly will does not equate to diminished economic activity in the US because of it.

But your analogy is invalid - the US has a huge trade deficit, all countries taken into account.

 

[Rick]

Trade imbalances do not create domestic unemployment in any major way.

That's absurd. People buy things made by foreigners and not things made by US labor, and it doesn't affect employment in the US???

We have had a negative imbalance in terms of trade for many years... many of which we saw low unemployment and a booming economy.

Nope, there's never been a timne like the current era.

 

[BigRob]

Wrong - most of the welfare state is at the national level.

But your analogy is invalid - the US has a huge trade deficit, all countries taken into account.

I don't agree with the premise that an overall trade imbalance is a major problem either... I was just pointing out the actual argument that economists make in terms of trade imbalances..

That said, in 2009, the total U.S. trade deficit was $380.7 billion, of which the vast majority of which was petroleum-related products. The U.S. imported over $253 billion in while only exporting $49 billion in this sector. That accounts for over half the whole deficit right there.

Additionally, with an imbalance of not even $400 billion (2009) in an economy worth over $14 trillion... one has to ask.. what is the big deal?