[ldrews]

barmar, on 2018-May-14, 08:38, said:

And now you're falling for the propaganda that trade deficits are bad.

I have a huge trade deficit with supermarkets and department stores -- I buy lots of stuff from them, they never buy anything from me. But my life is much better off because of this -- I don't have to grow my own food or make my own clothes.

As long as your aggregrate trade deficit is >0 you are in good shape. The US aggregate trade deficit is not in good shape.

You example reminds me of the person who has one hand in boiling water and the other hand in ice cold water. On the average he is comfortable.

[johnu]

ldrews, on 2018-May-13, 18:47, said:

As Trump has pointed out, when you are running a $500 billion/year trade deficit it hard to lose a trade war. And so far Trump's negotiation approach seems to be producing results.

What actual results? Nobody will know until a trade war is stabilized.

ldrews, on 2018-May-13, 18:47, said:

And all that minimum wage does is to drive out less qualified workers. It the product or service cannot sustain a higher wage, then the company simply cannot pay the higher wage, or else they go bankrupt. Then no one has a job.

Selective tariffs artificially create winners and losers. Businesses will be paying lobbyists billions to be on the right side of tariffs. At least they will be fully employed.

Republicans hate unions and the minimum wage. They also want to get rid of any government aid programs. This is an outstanding strategy as workers will have to take any wage that is offered or they will literally starve. Make America Great

[johnu]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-May-13, 18:26, said:

Inflation? A chimera created to fool the rubes. The CPI has lost all relation to the needs of real people which explains the current dire economic conditions (middle class heading south .... and not for vacation) and the lack of criticism of FR monetary policy if running the printing presses could be called a policy.

??? Are you saying inflation is fake like global warming, or that the CPI isn't accurate for everybody? There are actually several different CPI's for different groups of people, and they are averages for the entire country, not for specific people.

[ldrews]

johnu, on 2018-May-14, 11:22, said:

What actual results? Nobody will know until a trade war is stabilized.

North Korea coming to the negotiating table, NATO nations starting to actually meet their obligations, multinational companies and money flowing back into the US, China helping with the North Korea situation.

And since, as you say, nobody knows, why assume the negative?

[ldrews]

johnu, on 2018-May-14, 11:22, said:

Selective tariffs artificially create winners and losers. Businesses will be paying lobbyists billions to be on the right side of tariffs. At least they will be fully employed.

Trump's stated intent is to create "reciprocal" trade agreements, i.e., ideally no tariffs on either side. But until that can be achieved, the US can use tariffs to equalize the trade deficits. And businesses will be paying lobbyists billions regardless of what is done. They always try to be on the right side of legislation. We have the best government that money can buy!.

[Al_U_Card]

johnu, on 2018-May-14, 11:31, said:

??? Are you saying inflation is fake like global warming, or that the CPI isn't accurate for everybody? There are actually several different CPI's for different groups of people, and they are averages for the entire country, not for specific people.

CPI (and therefore the "official" inflation rate) has changed a couple of times. These modernizations have ensured a low % inflation rate over the last several decades. If food and gasoline are not included, can any rate apply to our real world economy?

[PeterAlan]

ldrews, on 2018-May-14, 14:05, said:

... China helping with the North Korea situation.

Is it just me that thinks that China's involvement, including Kim Jong-Un's two recent visits for discussions, may have had a lot more to do with producing North Korea's current stance than anything done by the Trump administration? I suspect that "helping" is a significant understatement.

[PeterAlan]

ldrews, on 2018-May-14, 14:11, said:

Trump's stated intent is to create "reciprocal" trade agreements, i.e., ideally no tariffs on either side. But until that can be achieved, the US can use tariffs to equalize the trade deficits.

I'm not sure I understand what "equalizing" trade deficits means unless they're all zero. But let's hypothesise the improbable situation where the US reaches a zero trade deficit with the rest of the world. Why would adopting "no tariffs on either side" (removing any residual prior ones) then result in stabilising that zero deficit?

[Al_U_Card]

johnu, on 2018-May-14, 11:31, said:

??? Are you saying inflation is fake like global warming, or that the CPI isn't accurate for everybody? There are actually several different CPI's for different groups of people, and they are averages for the entire country, not for specific people.

BTW the globe has warmed since the 1600's but the contribution of anthropogenically generated CO2 to that warming is insignificant and Trump has realized this and is withdrawing the US from the bogus aspects of mitigation efforts because they are inconsequential despite being extremely expensive. Part of his platform and one of its best and most efficient.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-May-14, 16:15, said:

BTW the globe has warmed since the 1600's but the contribution of anthropogenically generated CO2 to that warming is insignificant and Trump has realized this and is withdrawing the US from the bogus aspects of mitigation efforts because they are inconsequential despite being extremely expensive. Part of his platform and one of its best and most efficient.

Please exile the LaRouchie back to his thread

[ldrews]

PeterAlan, on 2018-May-14, 16:08, said:

I'm not sure I understand what "equalizing" trade deficits means unless they're all zero. But let's hypothesise the improbable situation where the US reaches a zero trade deficit with the rest of the world. Why would adopting "no tariffs on either side" (removing any residual prior ones) then result in stabilising that zero deficit?

Don't know that it would, but it removes the distortions and complications of tariffs. Do you think it would not result in stabilizing that zero deficit. If so, why?

[PeterAlan]

ldrews, on 2018-May-14, 17:11, said:

Don't know that it would, but it removes the distortions and complications of tariffs. Do you think it would not result in stabilizing that zero deficit. If so, why?

I'll agree with you that it's desirable to remove "the distortions and complications of tariffs" (welcome to the party, though I'm under the impression you're a late arrival). But if equilibrium is reached only in the presence of tariffs, it will be disturbed if those tariffs are removed; otherwise the tariffs have had no effect.

[y66]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-May-13, 18:26, said:

Inflation? A chimera created to fool the rubes. The CPI has lost all relation to the needs of real people which explains the current dire economic conditions (middle class heading south .... and not for vacation) and the lack of criticism of FR monetary policy if running the printing presses could be called a policy.

In what way is the CPI now measuring changes in the prices of goods and services that real people consume differently than, say, 30 years ago and what is your estimate of the change in the cost of living for real people since, say, January 1988? Is it also your opinion that these guys at MIT are mismeasuring changes in the prices of stuff that real people consume too?

[Winstonm]

I wonder why Fredo has such a sudden fondness for saving Chinese phone companies and Chinese jobs?

Quote

China Contributing $500 Million to Trump-Linked Project in Indonesia

https://www.national...ject-indonesia/

Never mind.

[ldrews]

PeterAlan, on 2018-May-14, 17:39, said:

I'll agree with you that it's desirable to remove "the distortions and complications of tariffs" (welcome to the party, though I'm under the impression you're a late arrival). But if equilibrium is reached only in the presence of tariffs, it will be disturbed if those tariffs are removed; otherwise the tariffs have had no effect.

Don't know why you think I am a late arrival; I have been a limited government libertarian for 50 years.

[WellSpyder]

ldrews, on 2018-May-14, 17:11, said:

Don't know that it would, but it removes the distortions and complications of tariffs. Do you think it would not result in stabilizing that zero deficit. If so, why?

I know economics "experts" tend not to be held in very high regard by others, but I really think you would do better to take some notice of the more or less universally held view among economists that zero trade deficits are neither a particularly likely nor a particularly desirable state of affairs.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2018-May-14, 19:36, said:

I wonder why Fredo has such a sudden fondness for saving Chinese phone companies and Chinese jobs?

https://www.national...ject-indonesia/

Never mind.

https://www.huffingt...4b0200bcab7fa66

What most people don't know is that Comrade Dennison drained the swamp immediately after the inauguration. The old swamp was too small and too shallow and constantly overflowing. With the help of Trump Swamp Design and Construction (no relation to POTUS) the current swamp has been increased in surface area by 10X and the bottom cleaned and dredged so it is 3X deeper. Everybody knows that if the swamp overflows and clogs the pipes, it overflows into the White House.

Of course, Comrade Dennison is a modest man and didn't want to publicize his magnificent accomplishment. I would like to remind everybody that not only is there no collusion, but there isn't any bribery, and did anybody know there was a word spelled "emoluments"?

In closing, I would like to state that Comrade Dennison is a man of impeccable integrity and cannot be bought although he can be leased or rented by calling 1-800-RentaPotus.

[PeterAlan]

ldrews, on 2018-May-14, 20:11, said:

Don't know why you think I am a late arrival; I have been a limited government libertarian for 50 years.

It must be that I had failed to realise that the support you had previously expressed for these tariffs was entirely directed at and conditional on the goal of achieving zero trade deficits, however chimerical that may be, and had nothing to do with support for US protectionism - or indeed with "national security", which I understand to be the pretext for them.

[ldrews]

PeterAlan, on 2018-May-15, 04:47, said:

It must be that I had failed to realise that the support you had previously expressed for these tariffs was entirely directed at and conditional on the goal of achieving zero trade deficits, however chimerical that may be, and had nothing to do with support for US protectionism - or indeed with "national security", which I understand to be the pretext for them.

It seems to me that one of the differences in the conversations stems from whether you believe the world is a collection of friendly family members or a collection of competing nations. Those are not mutually exclusive but do give rise to different premises. I hold to the latter view.

From the view of competing nations, it is important to be able to effectively compete, economically and militarily. The steel and aluminum industries are considered essential to the ability to compete militarily and so must be supported/protected/encouraged via tariffs. So "national security" is not just a "pretext", it is primary factor.

[Al_U_Card]

y66, on 2018-May-14, 18:35, said:

In what way is the CPI now measuring changes in the prices of goods and services that real people consume differently than, say, 30 years ago and what is your estimate of the change in the cost of living for real people since, say, January 1988? Is it also your opinion that these guys at MIT are mismeasuring changes in the prices of stuff that real people consume too?

I readily accept that changes can and should be made to any system to limit inaccuracy and improve precision. Like all good quality control efforts, the net result should be comparable to the original otherwise sources of bias will be introduced and when that bias consistently favours one narrative, questions should be raised (same goes for the temperature records) The MIT data are interesting and require further study. Thanks for the link.

A summary of the methodology. Forbes

Changes made and their effect on the "real"(?) inflation rate. Shadowstats