Dems say "trade deficits don't matter"....lets debate that stupid position

[iceberg]

Having a trade deficit is not the same as losing money like the idiot Trump thinks.

so i should ignore a billionaire on how money works and listen to a bitter idiot on a random newsgroup.

You should ignore Trump because is is dumber than shit.

What is your "trade deficit" with the local grocery. Do you think buying food is losing money?

The idea you think Trump is smart just makes me laugh.

the idea you think you know the differences is quite telling.

 

[kyzr]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Ok. Do yourself a huge favor. None of us here are economist so we must rely on those who are experts for the answers. You have made numerous erroneous statements in this thread. Before you post again on this thread, watch the following video.......and then you will want to beg the MODS to remove this thread.

 

[kyzr]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Ok. Do yourself a huge favor. None of us here are economist so we must rely on those who are experts for the answers. You have made numerous erroneous statements in this thread. Before you post again on this thread, watch the following video.......and then you will want to beg the MODS to remove this thread.

Milton Friedman is cut from the same cloth as Paul Krugman. Guys like those are the ones that got us into this mess. Lets call it the "race to the bottom". Now imagine that you are a US worker bee trying to earn a living and put your kids thru college. Now some economist decides that your job is not as valuable as a new job overseas, and that was due to unfair trade agreements. How can Wall Street turn China from a basket case into a major world power threatening the US, ask Milton Friedman....
1. Are there unfair/stupid trade agreements?
2. How should you make trade agreements more fair?
3. Peter Navarro - Wikipedia
4. Robert Lighthizer may be the most powerful Trump official you’ve never heard of

There are many ways to protect and grow the US economy, and we disagree on how to proceed. After Trump the socialists may get another shot at governing, we'll see how the US economy does then. Venezuela anyone?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Venezuela and Iran had trade surpluses in 2017. So, by your logic their economy is healthy and the US economy is weak.

Think about that for just a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[kyzr]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Venezuela and Iran had trade surpluses in 2017. So, by your logic their economy is healthy and the US economy is weak.

Think about that for just a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Think China would go for a big trade deficit with the US, (if trade deficits really don't matter)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Venezuela and Iran had trade surpluses in 2017. So, by your logic their economy is healthy and the US economy is weak.

Think about that for just a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Think China would go for a big trade deficit with the US, (if trade deficits really don't matter)

Once again, according to your own words the economy of Venezuela and Iran is stronger than that of the US. Do you stand by that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Kondor3]

...Trade deficits come back to this country as investment...

Indeed.

More foreigners owning more strategic American capacity.

No thank you.

 

[hadit]

It’s weird the way Republican say something really stupid and then say Democrats said that and so we should debate.

The thing is Democrats don’t have to make stuff up because the things that Republicans do are not only stupid but they’re really creepy.

Like stripping parents of their children.

It’s like a crime against humanity and despised internationally.

And I didn’t even have to make it up.

That was also Obama policy, but you knew that.

 

[task0778]

Americans buy foreign goods with American dollars, which are then transferred to foreign account holders. The foreign account holder can only do four things with those dollars: 1) turn around and buy American goods, 2) invest them in American securities, 3) hold them in perpetuity and 4) exchange them for another currency.

The fact that a current account deficit exists demonstrates that foreigners are investing/holding more dollars than purchasing American goods. [1] Investments come back to American companies or governments in the form of capital, not consumer goods, which drives economic growth. [2] Foreigners who hold onto dollars and never use them are essentially trading real consumer goods for green pieces of paper, which is actually a net gain for American consumers. [3] Rather, the current accounts should be evaluated based on volume, not deficit or surplus.

Is a current account deficit good or bad for the economy? | Investopedia Is a current account deficit good or bad for the economy?

[1] This is one reason why Trump is trying to force foreign gov'ts to reduce their tariffs on our stuff coming into their countries. Lower tariffs imposed on our stuff makes them more competitive in terms of price, so we sell more of our stuff to others and as a result the negative trade imbalance goes down. You can bitch about his methods, maybe there's a better way but it's worth noting that no other president has found a better way of doing it.

[2] Foreign investments helps spur our economic growth. That's why Investments are a factor in determining the GDP number, and foreign investment is a part of that.

[3] If they didn't invest those dollars here and didn't buy anything with them, then that money is just lying fallow and doing nothing. I would think those dollars would be in a US bank account somewhere earning interest if nothing else, but then that is actually an investment cuz now that bank can loan that money out to a US business or person and more goods and services could then be produced.


Trade deficits in and of themselves really don't matter, it's what you do with those foreign products that really counts. If it's all consumption stuff then you really haven't increased US productivity in any way, right? But if you bought foreign materials and built and sold a product then it's a positive increase in GDP that is presumably greater than what you paid for the foreign materials. Consider this:


In terms of trade surpluses, the U.S. achieved its high-water mark in 1975. That was the last year it enjoyed a trade surplus – and a year when GDP growth was negative at -0.2%. The surplus was over $12 billion, but would anyone describe the U.S. economy at the time as something to emulate? It was a period when the nation seemed to be trapped in low economic growth, with high unemployment and inflation rates. Indeed, one of the reasons the U.S. had a trade surplus is because Americans had relatively little money to spend on foreign goods. Was the nation better off for it?

The United States isn’t the only country where trade balances do not reflect economic growth or wealth creation. If trade surpluses were a magic wand to make wealth appear, why hasn’t it done so in Angola, Ghana, Mongolia, Mozambique, or Uzbekistan, all of which enjoyed trade surpluses last year? (2016) For that matter, why has Japan’s continuing string of trade surpluses failed to lift its economy out of a 20-year-plus cycle of tepid growth and deflationary malaise? (A trend that Trump singularly failed to forecast in 1989, when he said: “Japan is sucking the blood out of us.” According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. achieved growth rates of 1.6, 2.6. and 2.4 percent over the past three years. Slow but steady, but they look positively dazzling compared to Japan’s GDP growth rates of 0.0, 0.5 and 0.5 percent during the same period.)

Very thoughtful post.

But what if there is a fifth option with the money: to buy foreign stocks to upgrade foreign plants and reduce the US economy when the US plants have less capital to stay competitive?

Gotta be honest here, I ain't understanding your point here. Admittedly I'm not an economist, but are you suggesting that a country like China for instance, could go to an African country and invest the surplus US dollars they have to build some kind of plant that produces a product that the African country can then ship to the US and sell it here at a lower price than our domestic companies can? It's possible, but:

1. What do the Chinese get out of it? Assuming the above scenario is true, they spent US dollars but they get US dollars back when we buy the African product, whatever it is. Might pay off for them in the long run if everything works out, and it would also be a good thing for the local African country too. More jobs, right? Who (the employees) BTW might use the US dollars they get to buy US goods and services, so it ain't only a one-way street.

2. The US economy is pretty damn big, I don't think whatever total investments the Chinese or anyone else makes in a foreign land is going to make a difference to us. We are just too damn big. Now it could be that IF the foreign plant does produce a product that is cheaper than what we can do, then so much the better for us. [Note: it's gotta be cheaper after they spend the money to ship their stuff here, and these days that expense is not trivial.] The American consumer will have more money to spend on something else and our standard of living just went up. Or we could just save the money or invest it here. Maybe that means the US companies that are being under-priced can find ways to compete, and maybe not. In which case the US businesses change their business model or automate, or possibly go out of business and they use their capital to produce something else. I think they call it creative destruction or something like that. Shit happens.

Bottom line, a trade deficit is not necessarily the problem, it's the underlying causes that are the problem. The US consumer does not save or invest enough money, we spend too much of our money and even go into too much debt to buy stuff that we want. Many times it's stuff we don't really need that doesn't make us more productive and THAT is the problem.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Ok. Do yourself a huge favor. None of us here are economist so we must rely on those who are experts for the answers. You have made numerous erroneous statements in this thread. Before you post again on this thread, watch the following video.......and then you will want to beg the MODS to remove this thread.

Milton Friedman is cut from the same cloth as Paul Krugman. Guys like those are the ones that got us into this mess. Lets call it the "race to the bottom". Now imagine that you are a US worker bee trying to earn a living and put your kids thru college. Now some economist decides that your job is not as valuable as a new job overseas, and that was due to unfair trade agreements. How can Wall Street turn China from a basket case into a major world power threatening the US, ask Milton Friedman....
1. Are there unfair/stupid trade agreements?
2. How should you make trade agreements more fair?
3. Peter Navarro - Wikipedia
4. Robert Lighthizer may be the most powerful Trump official you’ve never heard of

There are many ways to protect and grow the US economy, and we disagree on how to proceed. After Trump the socialists may get another shot at governing, we'll see how the US economy does then. Venezuela anyone?

You know nothing of Friedman. If you think Krugman, a Keynesian economist and Friedman, a free-marketeer economist, are cut from the same cloth then you shouldn’t even be allowed to discuss economics. Friedman was the economic advisor to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and he mentored Thomas Sowell. They are all true conservatives, not phonies like you and your ilk. People like you are why I left the Republican Party. Now shut up before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Venezuela and Iran had trade surpluses in 2017. So, by your logic their economy is healthy and the US economy is weak.

Think about that for just a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Save your efforts. KYZR doesn’t know a thing about the economy. He thinks Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman are the same. He is utterly clueless.

 

[Markle]

Yes ? How so . You were forced to buy a Volkswagen?

Your desperation is duly noted.

My business has required that I have, in decades past, a radio car phone, Palm Pilot, then cell phones, smartphones, countless computers, laptops, printers, laser then color and laser, fax machines, expensive shoes, suits, shirts, sheets, pillowcases, and the list goes on!

What’s your point . Did you not have American options? Sure you can’t find an American
Tv , but what about everything else .

It’s fucking rediculous to complain that the government won’t stop you from Buying foreign made goods .

Sure you can buy a TV made in America.

List of Televisions That Are Made in America | Techwalla.com

None of which are among the top-rated tvs in America. Plus, in you source.

While many Panasonic TV models are assembled in Malaysia, the company does sell a few TV models assembled in the U.S. For example, some 20-inch TV/VCR combination TVs are assembled in the U.S

 

[kyzr]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Venezuela and Iran had trade surpluses in 2017. So, by your logic their economy is healthy and the US economy is weak.

Think about that for just a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Think China would go for a big trade deficit with the US, (if trade deficits really don't matter)

Once again, according to your own words the economy of Venezuela and Iran is stronger than that of the US. Do you stand by that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Reading comprehension issues?? Never mention Venezuela or Iran?! My OP essentially supports the Trump/Navarro/Lightheiser position of re-negotiating bad trade deals. Bad trade deals create large trade deficits, good trade deals have no deficits or better yet a trade surplus. Stop with the red herring or straw men arguments. Debate the trade deals.

 

[Markle]

I’d like to only buy made in America electronics because no one is forcing me to buy foreign goods.

What Brands of made in America electronics should I purchase and where?

Thanks guys.

Why are quality, durability, and value NOT important to you?

 

[BluesLegend]

I'll make it simple for the libtards, business is WAR!

 

[kyzr]

Americans buy foreign goods with American dollars, which are then transferred to foreign account holders. The foreign account holder can only do four things with those dollars: 1) turn around and buy American goods, 2) invest them in American securities, 3) hold them in perpetuity and 4) exchange them for another currency.

The fact that a current account deficit exists demonstrates that foreigners are investing/holding more dollars than purchasing American goods. [1] Investments come back to American companies or governments in the form of capital, not consumer goods, which drives economic growth. [2] Foreigners who hold onto dollars and never use them are essentially trading real consumer goods for green pieces of paper, which is actually a net gain for American consumers. [3] Rather, the current accounts should be evaluated based on volume, not deficit or surplus.

Is a current account deficit good or bad for the economy? | Investopedia Is a current account deficit good or bad for the economy?

[1] This is one reason why Trump is trying to force foreign gov'ts to reduce their tariffs on our stuff coming into their countries. Lower tariffs imposed on our stuff makes them more competitive in terms of price, so we sell more of our stuff to others and as a result the negative trade imbalance goes down. You can bitch about his methods, maybe there's a better way but it's worth noting that no other president has found a better way of doing it.

[2] Foreign investments helps spur our economic growth. That's why Investments are a factor in determining the GDP number, and foreign investment is a part of that.

[3] If they didn't invest those dollars here and didn't buy anything with them, then that money is just lying fallow and doing nothing. I would think those dollars would be in a US bank account somewhere earning interest if nothing else, but then that is actually an investment cuz now that bank can loan that money out to a US business or person and more goods and services could then be produced.


Trade deficits in and of themselves really don't matter, it's what you do with those foreign products that really counts. If it's all consumption stuff then you really haven't increased US productivity in any way, right? But if you bought foreign materials and built and sold a product then it's a positive increase in GDP that is presumably greater than what you paid for the foreign materials. Consider this:


In terms of trade surpluses, the U.S. achieved its high-water mark in 1975. That was the last year it enjoyed a trade surplus – and a year when GDP growth was negative at -0.2%. The surplus was over $12 billion, but would anyone describe the U.S. economy at the time as something to emulate? It was a period when the nation seemed to be trapped in low economic growth, with high unemployment and inflation rates. Indeed, one of the reasons the U.S. had a trade surplus is because Americans had relatively little money to spend on foreign goods. Was the nation better off for it?

The United States isn’t the only country where trade balances do not reflect economic growth or wealth creation. If trade surpluses were a magic wand to make wealth appear, why hasn’t it done so in Angola, Ghana, Mongolia, Mozambique, or Uzbekistan, all of which enjoyed trade surpluses last year? (2016) For that matter, why has Japan’s continuing string of trade surpluses failed to lift its economy out of a 20-year-plus cycle of tepid growth and deflationary malaise? (A trend that Trump singularly failed to forecast in 1989, when he said: “Japan is sucking the blood out of us.” According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. achieved growth rates of 1.6, 2.6. and 2.4 percent over the past three years. Slow but steady, but they look positively dazzling compared to Japan’s GDP growth rates of 0.0, 0.5 and 0.5 percent during the same period.)

Very thoughtful post.

But what if there is a fifth option with the money: to buy foreign stocks to upgrade foreign plants and reduce the US economy when the US plants have less capital to stay competitive?

Gotta be honest here, I ain't understanding your point here. Admittedly I'm not an economist, but are you suggesting that a country like China for instance, could go to an African country and invest the surplus US dollars they have to build some kind of plant that produces a product that the African country can then ship to the US and sell it here at a lower price than our domestic companies can? It's possible, but:

1. What do the Chinese get out of it? Assuming the above scenario is true, they spent US dollars but they get US dollars back when we buy the African product, whatever it is. Might pay off for them in the long run if everything works out, and it would also be a good thing for the local African country too. More jobs, right? Who (the employees) BTW might use the US dollars they get to buy US goods and services, so it ain't only a one-way street.

2. The US economy is pretty damn big, I don't think whatever total investments the Chinese or anyone else makes in a foreign land is going to make a difference to us. We are just too damn big. Now it could be that IF the foreign plant does produce a product that is cheaper than what we can do, then so much the better for us. [Note: it's gotta be cheaper after they spend the money to ship their stuff here, and these days that expense is not trivial.] The American consumer will have more money to spend on something else and our standard of living just went up. Or we could just save the money or invest it here. Maybe that means the US companies that are being under-priced can find ways to compete, and maybe not. In which case the US businesses change their business model or automate, or possibly go out of business and they use their capital to produce something else. I think they call it creative destruction or something like that. Shit happens.

Bottom line, a trade deficit is not necessarily the problem, it's the underlying causes that are the problem. The US consumer does not save or invest enough money, we spend too much of our money and even go into too much debt to buy stuff that we want. Many times it's stuff we don't really need that doesn't make us more productive and THAT is the problem.

Starting at your "bottom-line" paragraph...totally agree that the US economy is a huge very complex economy that is affected by thousands of factors, some factors more than others. The US consumer's buying power has stagnated for decades, so also agree that they save and invest too little. Your last sentence is the key to this thread and the OP. Remember Obama's statement that manufacturing jobs are gone
Why did you vote for Trump?
We don't want a "service economy" nor a "race to the bottom" of wages, nor wage and price controls. We want a balanced economy, with living wages, and fair trade deals with no dumping or state subsidized products, i.e. free and fair trade. Trade deficits may be a product of stupid trade deals.

 

[BluesLegend]

You should ignore Trump because is is dumber than shit.

Right, Trump is so dumb he obliterated Hillary, the DNC, Dem party, and entire MSM and became president. Then bitch slapped Dem's with the nuclear option and filled the SCOTUS seat with a conservative. That's how dumb...wait a minute...

 

[kyzr]

I hear on CNN & MSNBC stupid people saying that trade deficits don't matter. Maybe they are socialists in a capitalistic country, but here are a few reasons why they are wrong.
1. If I have a trade surplus, you are either giving me your money, or borrowing money to pay me.
2. If I have a trade deficit, I am borrowing money to pay someone to buy stuff.

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Ok. Do yourself a huge favor. None of us here are economist so we must rely on those who are experts for the answers. You have made numerous erroneous statements in this thread. Before you post again on this thread, watch the following video.......and then you will want to beg the MODS to remove this thread.

Milton Friedman is cut from the same cloth as Paul Krugman. Guys like those are the ones that got us into this mess. Lets call it the "race to the bottom". Now imagine that you are a US worker bee trying to earn a living and put your kids thru college. Now some economist decides that your job is not as valuable as a new job overseas, and that was due to unfair trade agreements. How can Wall Street turn China from a basket case into a major world power threatening the US, ask Milton Friedman....
1. Are there unfair/stupid trade agreements?
2. How should you make trade agreements more fair?
3. Peter Navarro - Wikipedia
4. Robert Lighthizer may be the most powerful Trump official you’ve never heard of

There are many ways to protect and grow the US economy, and we disagree on how to proceed. After Trump the socialists may get another shot at governing, we'll see how the US economy does then. Venezuela anyone?

You know nothing of Friedman. If you think Krugman, a Keynesian economist and Friedman, a free-marketeer economist, are cut from the same cloth then you shouldn’t even be allowed to discuss economics. Friedman was the economic advisor to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and he mentored Thomas Sowell. They are all true conservatives, not phonies like you and your ilk. People like you are why I left the Republican Party. Now shut up before you embarrass yourself further.

Not too good at reading between the lines?
Krugman also predicted a stock market crash if Trump won...and was wayyyyy wrong...
And The Hits Just Kept Coming: The Greatest (False) Predictions Of 2017 | Investor's Business Daily

Friedman explains that a trade deficitis good, but he doesn't seem to look at it like the US is a business, like Trump, the audience isn't buying it either. Businessmen and households always like receipts to exceed expenses. So it looks like Trump/Navarro/Lightheiser are on the opposite side of Friedman's argument.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I just re-read your OP. You literally said that you have to borrow money whether you have a trade surplus or deficit.

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Venezuela and Iran had trade surpluses in 2017. So, by your logic their economy is healthy and the US economy is weak.

Think about that for just a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Think China would go for a big trade deficit with the US, (if trade deficits really don't matter)

Once again, according to your own words the economy of Venezuela and Iran is stronger than that of the US. Do you stand by that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Reading comprehension issues?? Never mention Venezuela or Iran?! My OP essentially supports the Trump/Navarro/Lightheiser position of re-negotiating bad trade deals. Bad trade deals create large trade deficits, good trade deals have no deficits or better yet a trade surplus. Stop with the red herring or straw men arguments. Debate the trade deals.

No, I have no comprehension issues at all. These are your words..."having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak". I gave you two countries that had trade surpluses in 2017 (Iran and Venezuela) , would you call their economies healthy?
The United States has the largest GDP in the world, we have the most wealth in the world, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the industrialized world, and we are at 109 straight months of economic expansion...do you claim that we have a weak economy?