19 ms·

If you balance the trade, it means reduced foreign ownership of U.S. assets, yes, which means ownership of U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase. One o

If you balance the trade, it means reduced foreign ownership of U.S. assets, yes, which means ownership of U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase. One of the primary problems with an unbalanced trade deficit is that your own inhabitants are left with less wealth over time, as assets are sold off to fund consumption.

ChadNauseam 1y ago
That’s zero-sum thinking. Increases demand for US assets can make americans wealthier in many ways (e.g. providing more capital to american businesses).
- bnjms 1y ago
  Some goods are zero sum. Land is zero sum. Ownership of land by non local entities is… idk seems bad
  - epolanski 1y ago
    Why? What's the issue, if me, an Italian, own land in Indiana or North Cali?
    - chrisco255 1y ago
      You, a single actor, probably wouldn't be a significant factor. However, an international government or corporate entity owning hundreds of thousands of acres and exploiting resources on the land and routing them back to their home country can be problematic. It places additional strain on limited resources and the profits are not spent in the local economy...just sent overseas. Absentee ownership of non-productive real estate can also drive up the costs of housing for citizens, making homeownership more difficult and driving down wealth in the middle class.
      - epolanski 1y ago
        I see it completely opposite of you. 1) The foreign entity is investing where Americans aren't. 2) There is a very huge risk for the foreign entity to own such an operation because of political changes. By law or decree the US or the state can always nationalize these lands. Thus, ultimately, I see no issue there.
        gwbrooks 1y ago
        1. Foreign entities are also investing in land that is strategically or tactically important -- agricultural land is a good example of the former; land near military bases an example of the latter. China has demonstrated a willingness to do both. 2. I think this represents a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. The Constitution provides no power for the federal government to acquire land without just compensation, which courts have regularly held to mean fair market value. Put another way: The feds can likely devise a path for buying your land, but can't outright nationalize it. Changing that is not a matter of presidential decree or even a law by Congress; it would require an amendment to the Constitution itself, which is an extraordinarily heavy political and policy lift.
        epolanski 1y ago
        I still see no issue, the government can always buy it out at fair price, whatever it is, and it can just print money or easily issue debt to fund that.
  - yellowapple 1y ago
    The solution to that is land value taxation, not foreign trade policies that have zero bearing on land ownership.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> If you balance the trade, it means reduced foreign ownership of U.S. assets, yes, which means ownership of U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase. Proportionately, perhaps, but that doesn't mean by value of assets owned. It just means the aggregate value of assets in the US will be less.
monadINtop 1y ago
>which means ownership of U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase Which to be clear will be largely domestic oligarchs and other whales since the vast majority of domestic citizens in the US don't have enough capital to own any significant amount of assets, US or otherwise.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  It applies across the spectrum, but to your point, at least domestic billionaires pay domestic taxes and spend money domestically. Speaking to the middle class, home ownership (traditionally one of the most reliable sources of wealth for the middle class) would increase.
  - monadINtop 1y ago
    Yeah that's a fair point as well.
nabla9 1y ago
>U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase. You think zero sum like accountant or land owner. They money coming is invested for opportunities. There will be less opportunities for startups, less VC money. Less affordable loans for corporations to expand and invest.
epolanski 1y ago
Why would it even be desirable to have less foreign ownership of US assets? Like what is the sound logic here? As an Italian I would love more foreign ownership of Italian businesses, that would not only bring capital but more scrutiny.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  On one side it could mean that less money leaves. That is no dividends are paid to outside the country. All profits stay in. On other hand the economy overall and stock market especially have enormously increased due to outside investments. As injection of money in later one directly pushes valuations up. And the borrowing is only possible when someone loans money...
- chrisco255 1y ago
  If the foreign entities are not aligned with your country's values, what good is it? For example, Putin is arguably one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Would you be bothered if he scooped up a controlling share in Italy's defense contractors or machining manufacturers?
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  The extreme opposite of zero foreign ownership would be full foreign ownerhship, ie. colonization. All your resources and wealth belong to a foreign nation. If we agree that that's a bad thing, then it stands to reason that there's a certain point where foreign ownership becomes a bad thing. I think China has done an excellent job of bringing in foreign investment while keeping those foreign investors from running amok.
- robocat 1y ago
  > I would love more foreign ownership of Italian businesses, that would not only bring capital Capital investments are like credit card spending, feels good for a while, but ultimately outwards-capital value should always exceed inwards-capital value (that's why somebody makes an investment). Sometimes everybody is better off (the ideal founder story with VC investment) but all too often the investment money is stolen or misused (but the debt remains for the country to repay). The 1MDB investments didn't help Malaysia: US investment bank Goldman Sachs helps 1MDB sell bonds worth $3.5bn... Goldman Sachs helps 1MDB raise a further $3bn in an additional bond sale, this time to cover “new strategic economic initiatives” between Malaysia and Abu Dhabi https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/7/28/timeline-how-malaysias-1mdb-financial-scandal-unfolded https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/7/28/timeline-how-malays...

ChadNauseam 1y ago

That’s zero-sum thinking. Increases demand for US assets can make americans wealthier in many ways (e.g. providing more capital to american businesses).

bnjms 1y ago
Some goods are zero sum. Land is zero sum. Ownership of land by non local entities is… idk seems bad
- epolanski 1y ago
  Why? What's the issue, if me, an Italian, own land in Indiana or North Cali?
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    You, a single actor, probably wouldn't be a significant factor. However, an international government or corporate entity owning hundreds of thousands of acres and exploiting resources on the land and routing them back to their home country can be problematic. It places additional strain on limited resources and the profits are not spent in the local economy...just sent overseas. Absentee ownership of non-productive real estate can also drive up the costs of housing for citizens, making homeownership more difficult and driving down wealth in the middle class.
    - epolanski 1y ago
      I see it completely opposite of you. 1) The foreign entity is investing where Americans aren't. 2) There is a very huge risk for the foreign entity to own such an operation because of political changes. By law or decree the US or the state can always nationalize these lands. Thus, ultimately, I see no issue there.
      - gwbrooks 1y ago
        1. Foreign entities are also investing in land that is strategically or tactically important -- agricultural land is a good example of the former; land near military bases an example of the latter. China has demonstrated a willingness to do both. 2. I think this represents a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. The Constitution provides no power for the federal government to acquire land without just compensation, which courts have regularly held to mean fair market value. Put another way: The feds can likely devise a path for buying your land, but can't outright nationalize it. Changing that is not a matter of presidential decree or even a law by Congress; it would require an amendment to the Constitution itself, which is an extraordinarily heavy political and policy lift.
        epolanski 1y ago
        I still see no issue, the government can always buy it out at fair price, whatever it is, and it can just print money or easily issue debt to fund that.
- yellowapple 1y ago
  The solution to that is land value taxation, not foreign trade policies that have zero bearing on land ownership.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> If you balance the trade, it means reduced foreign ownership of U.S. assets, yes, which means ownership of U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase. Proportionately, perhaps, but that doesn't mean by value of assets owned. It just means the aggregate value of assets in the US will be less.

monadINtop 1y ago

>which means ownership of U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase Which to be clear will be largely domestic oligarchs and other whales since the vast majority of domestic citizens in the US don't have enough capital to own any significant amount of assets, US or otherwise.

chrisco255 1y ago
It applies across the spectrum, but to your point, at least domestic billionaires pay domestic taxes and spend money domestically. Speaking to the middle class, home ownership (traditionally one of the most reliable sources of wealth for the middle class) would increase.
- monadINtop 1y ago
  Yeah that's a fair point as well.

nabla9 1y ago

>U.S. assets by domestic citizens will increase. You think zero sum like accountant or land owner. They money coming is invested for opportunities. There will be less opportunities for startups, less VC money. Less affordable loans for corporations to expand and invest.

epolanski 1y ago

Why would it even be desirable to have less foreign ownership of US assets? Like what is the sound logic here? As an Italian I would love more foreign ownership of Italian businesses, that would not only bring capital but more scrutiny.

Ekaros 1y ago
On one side it could mean that less money leaves. That is no dividends are paid to outside the country. All profits stay in. On other hand the economy overall and stock market especially have enormously increased due to outside investments. As injection of money in later one directly pushes valuations up. And the borrowing is only possible when someone loans money...
chrisco255 1y ago
If the foreign entities are not aligned with your country's values, what good is it? For example, Putin is arguably one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Would you be bothered if he scooped up a controlling share in Italy's defense contractors or machining manufacturers?
yupitsme123 1y ago
The extreme opposite of zero foreign ownership would be full foreign ownerhship, ie. colonization. All your resources and wealth belong to a foreign nation. If we agree that that's a bad thing, then it stands to reason that there's a certain point where foreign ownership becomes a bad thing. I think China has done an excellent job of bringing in foreign investment while keeping those foreign investors from running amok.
robocat 1y ago
> I would love more foreign ownership of Italian businesses, that would not only bring capital Capital investments are like credit card spending, feels good for a while, but ultimately outwards-capital value should always exceed inwards-capital value (that's why somebody makes an investment). Sometimes everybody is better off (the ideal founder story with VC investment) but all too often the investment money is stolen or misused (but the debt remains for the country to repay). The 1MDB investments didn't help Malaysia: US investment bank Goldman Sachs helps 1MDB sell bonds worth $3.5bn... Goldman Sachs helps 1MDB raise a further $3bn in an additional bond sale, this time to cover “new strategic economic initiatives” between Malaysia and Abu Dhabi https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/7/28/timeline-how-malaysias-1mdb-financial-scandal-unfolded https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/7/28/timeline-how-malays...