5 ms·

All the “smart” people have been going in the wrong direction for 40 years—pursing short term profits and encouraging wasteful consumption—so you got the toddle

All the “smart” people have been going in the wrong direction for 40 years—pursing short term profits and encouraging wasteful consumption—so you got the toddler. Let that be a lesson. Our trade deficit in the 1990s was under 1% of GDP. Some people may not remember that time, but we had toys on the shelves, toilet paper, etc. Not at all what the doomers are saying will happen without unrestricted free trade. If trade deficits are so great, why does the EU try to maintain a consistent surplus? I can accept that Trump is an idiot and doesn’t know what he’s doing on trade. But I think the EU bureaucrats are pretty smart! I think the Germans and Chinese and Japanese are very sharp and have deliberately sought to maintain manufacturing-oriented economies with a large trade surpluses. You know who else ran large trade deficits? The UK: https://ercouncil.org/2016/chart-of-the-week-week-19-2016-uk-trade-balance/ https://ercouncil.org/2016/chart-of-the-week-week-19-2016-uk.... And it seemingly worked for awhile so long as people gave a shit about the pound and London banks, but that proved to be extremely fragile. The 2008 recession destroyed that and erased the UK’s higher standard of living.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
Can you link to one person with any sort of platform who has said "trade deficits are great?" Can you link to any left-of-center elected official who has advocated for "unrestricted free trade?" Or are you making these people up so you can win imaginary arguments?
- rayiner 2y ago
  What is actually happening matters more than what anyone says. “Trade deficits are great” and “unrestricted free trade” reflects the status quo. The weighted average tariff rate in 2016 was just 1.5%. The trade deficit has grown to over $1 trillion. Minor surgical changes aren’t going to move the needle when you have an economy addicted to debt-fueled consumption of foreign goods. Anyone who isn’t proposing major structural changes is endorsing the status quo of “trade deficits are great” and “unrestricted free trade.”
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    So imaginary people and imaginary arguments, got it.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The “imaginary arguments” are the ones about surgical changes to trade policy. They’re imaginary because they have no basis in anything those people have the political will to do.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
feoren 2y ago
I don't know about "trade deficits are good", but trade deficits are basically meaningless in isolation. I have a trade deficit with my local grocery store. Does that mean I'm being taken advantage of? Imagine a small country rich in raw materials but whose people are otherwise poor. They export tons of valuable minerals to the U.S. but the profits are kept by an elite few who spend most of their time outside the country, and nobody inside the country has enough wealth to buy goods from the U.S. The U.S. would have a large trade deficit with that country, but would be benefiting enormously from the relationship. In this scenario, the country's people are certainly being taken advantage of, but the U.S. is absolutely not. That's the problem with the trade deficit: it tells you almost nothing on its own. You can manufacture scenarios between countries involving a huge trade deficit, surplus, or an even balance, but where trade is fair, or where either country is taking advantage of the other. It's just not a useful number on its own.
- rayiner 2y ago
  To extend your grocery store example: you have a trade deficit with your grocery store, but you have a trade surplus with your employer! You’re not running a structural trade deficit, and it would be bad to do so. Your example about small countries is irrelevant because nobody cares about the trade deficit between the U.S. and Bangladesh. Virtually the entire trade deficit is the EU, China, Japan, Vietnam, Canada, and Taiwan. The EU, Japan, and China are big, diversified economies and there is no reason we should have a trade deficit with them.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    > Your example about small countries is irrelevant because nobody cares about the trade deficit between the U.S. and Bangladesh Except for the person in charge of America's trade policy, lmao
    - rayiner 2y ago
      He doesn’t care, about those other countries. It’s just posturing.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago

Can you link to one person with any sort of platform who has said "trade deficits are great?" Can you link to any left-of-center elected official who has advocated for "unrestricted free trade?" Or are you making these people up so you can win imaginary arguments?

rayiner 2y ago
What is actually happening matters more than what anyone says. “Trade deficits are great” and “unrestricted free trade” reflects the status quo. The weighted average tariff rate in 2016 was just 1.5%. The trade deficit has grown to over $1 trillion. Minor surgical changes aren’t going to move the needle when you have an economy addicted to debt-fueled consumption of foreign goods. Anyone who isn’t proposing major structural changes is endorsing the status quo of “trade deficits are great” and “unrestricted free trade.”
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  So imaginary people and imaginary arguments, got it.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The “imaginary arguments” are the ones about surgical changes to trade policy. They’re imaginary because they have no basis in anything those people have the political will to do.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

feoren 2y ago

I don't know about "trade deficits are good", but trade deficits are basically meaningless in isolation. I have a trade deficit with my local grocery store. Does that mean I'm being taken advantage of? Imagine a small country rich in raw materials but whose people are otherwise poor. They export tons of valuable minerals to the U.S. but the profits are kept by an elite few who spend most of their time outside the country, and nobody inside the country has enough wealth to buy goods from the U.S. The U.S. would have a large trade deficit with that country, but would be benefiting enormously from the relationship. In this scenario, the country's people are certainly being taken advantage of, but the U.S. is absolutely not. That's the problem with the trade deficit: it tells you almost nothing on its own. You can manufacture scenarios between countries involving a huge trade deficit, surplus, or an even balance, but where trade is fair, or where either country is taking advantage of the other. It's just not a useful number on its own.

rayiner 2y ago
To extend your grocery store example: you have a trade deficit with your grocery store, but you have a trade surplus with your employer! You’re not running a structural trade deficit, and it would be bad to do so. Your example about small countries is irrelevant because nobody cares about the trade deficit between the U.S. and Bangladesh. Virtually the entire trade deficit is the EU, China, Japan, Vietnam, Canada, and Taiwan. The EU, Japan, and China are big, diversified economies and there is no reason we should have a trade deficit with them.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  > Your example about small countries is irrelevant because nobody cares about the trade deficit between the U.S. and Bangladesh Except for the person in charge of America's trade policy, lmao
  - rayiner 2y ago
    He doesn’t care, about those other countries. It’s just posturing.