No living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorse Trump

[kaz]

Yeah.....you are describing Autarky.....it has nothing to do with "free market capitalism", and has a solid record of consistent failure......the experiments enjoy shorter lifespans than its communist cousins...

Nope, I am describing free market capitalism within the US economy, no economic isolationism, replacing multilateral trade agreements that drive US jobs to less developed countries with cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations and replacing them with bilateral trade agreements such as we had before the Clintons.

Calling it free market and saying no free trade is an oxymoron. Either we decide what business we want to engage in or the government does. That you can go out in the yard an hour a day in your prison doesn't make you a free man

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

Free trade is about more than that, but yeah, that's a big part of it

 

[IcebergSlim]

I said they ARE equivalent,


Hence my suggestion that you cannot be taken seriously....but we knew that already...

I see, so you were just a partisan, Hillary loving hack. Still not seeing the connection to the gold standard.

I said both can't be taken seriously. Your reply, you thought I supported the gold standard. What does that have to do with two candidates I don't support, don't take seriously, won't vote for and neither of whom support the gold standard?

You trying to just deflect at this point until you can run away?

It is a recognition of objective facts......that Hillary is more qualified for the job is Indisputable........ Whether you hate her, love her, or are indifferent....

Personally, I'm not very enthused about Hillary......but that doesn't blind me to the obvious.

Define "qualified"

There's relevant professional experience....... Also the intangibles, such as intelligence and temperament.....

Hillary? "Temperament?" You have to be kidding ...

OK, so she was first lady with no actual power. She was a Senator who voted for Iraq and accomplished shit on her own. Then she was Secretary of State where she sold the time on her schedule for donations to the Clinton foundation. That's her great "professional experience" to be President? Classic.

And what good is experience even if it did exist when she doesn't remember any of it as she testified repeatedly under oath? Don't recall, don't recall, don't recall ...

As for "intelligent," what has she ever pointed out to you that you found insightful? All she does is parrot the Democrat party. Evidence, counselor?

"Evidence", he says......following a series of Bold Assertions.

As the old joke about the bear illustrates, she just has to be faster than the alternative.....

Donald Trump is shockingly shallow and uninformed.....you would NEVER see him take on a hostile congressional committee for several hours.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Nope, I am describing free market capitalism within the US economy, no economic isolationism, replacing multilateral trade agreements that drive US jobs to less developed countries with cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations and replacing them with bilateral trade agreements such as we had before the Clintons.

Calling it free market and saying no free trade is an oxymoron. Either we decide what business we want to engage in or the government does. That you can go out in the yard an hour a day in your prison doesn't make you a free man

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

Free trade is about more than that, but yeah, that's a big part of it

International trade is predicated on it......

 

[Preacher]

Correct me if I am wrong but no living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorses Trump..

These are the people who know what the job on President is about and not one of them said Trump can do it...

Sorry this looks like evidence and we know how the Trump side just hates facts and evidence....

Funny thing is you think this is bad for Trump. NO living President,SOS or Fed chairman has given a shit about the American people so why would they endorse Trump? If they had endorsed him I would worry about that.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets see where we are...

Hillary
Presidents: Obama, Clinton, Carter, Bush
Vice Presidents: Biden, Gore
Nobel Prize winners: Obama, Carter, Gore

Trump
Presidents: um...none
Vice President: Cheney, Quayle
Nobel Prize winners: are you kidding me?

 

[kaz]

I see, so you were just a partisan, Hillary loving hack. Still not seeing the connection to the gold standard.

I said both can't be taken seriously. Your reply, you thought I supported the gold standard. What does that have to do with two candidates I don't support, don't take seriously, won't vote for and neither of whom support the gold standard?

You trying to just deflect at this point until you can run away?

It is a recognition of objective facts......that Hillary is more qualified for the job is Indisputable........ Whether you hate her, love her, or are indifferent....

Personally, I'm not very enthused about Hillary......but that doesn't blind me to the obvious.

Define "qualified"

There's relevant professional experience....... Also the intangibles, such as intelligence and temperament.....

Hillary? "Temperament?" You have to be kidding ...

OK, so she was first lady with no actual power. She was a Senator who voted for Iraq and accomplished shit on her own. Then she was Secretary of State where she sold the time on her schedule for donations to the Clinton foundation. That's her great "professional experience" to be President? Classic.

And what good is experience even if it did exist when she doesn't remember any of it as she testified repeatedly under oath? Don't recall, don't recall, don't recall ...

As for "intelligent," what has she ever pointed out to you that you found insightful? All she does is parrot the Democrat party. Evidence, counselor?

"Evidence", he says......following a series of Bold Assertions.

As the old joke about the bear illustrates, she just has to be faster than the alternative.....

Donald Trump is shockingly shallow and uninformed.....you would NEVER see him take on a hostile congressional committee for several hours.

Your poor government education as evidenced by your inability to quote your native language correctly would certainly be a factor as to why you prefer Democrats.

So I took you apart, and all you have is oh yeah, well Trump's worse! Lame, Larry

 

[rightwinger]

Correct me if I am wrong but no living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorses Trump..

These are the people who know what the job on President is about and not one of them said Trump can do it...

Sorry this looks like evidence and we know how the Trump side just hates facts and evidence....

Funny thing is you think this is bad for Trump. NO living President,SOS or Fed chairman has given a shit about the American people so why would they endorse Trump? If they had endorsed him I would worry about that.

I know....Only Trump loves us

 

[IcebergSlim]

Rumsfeld and Cheney support Trump which should tell you something.

That's a deal breaker right there....

What you'd say if they supported Hillary, right? Couldn't make the stupid that you are up. I support who I support. No one else's view would change my mind. Maybe their arguments, but that someone supports one side or another would never make me change my vote.

Then again it wouldn't for you either, Larry. You're lying. Don't you have some ugly chicks in a lounge to pick up somewhere?

Mr. 13%'s endorsement should be the Kiss of death for anyone receiving it.....

I have no idea where you get this "Larry" thing........and you would kill every one of your 23 cats to enjoy a brief taste of the kinds of women who have favored me with their attentions.

 

[kaz]

Calling it free market and saying no free trade is an oxymoron. Either we decide what business we want to engage in or the government does. That you can go out in the yard an hour a day in your prison doesn't make you a free man

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

Free trade is about more than that, but yeah, that's a big part of it

International trade is predicated on it......

What I said didn't contradict that. I guess my point is more that it's both a broader and a dynamic thing. Free trade increases competition, increases economies of scale, increases the flow of opportunity. Lower costs for the same things for consumers allow cash to be used to buy other things. All those things continually change comparative advantage honing it for the successful and undermining it for the failures.

Really it's about market efficiency. Again, that's not contradicting what you said, comparative advantage is what drives the efficiency. I know you're a "no it's not" debater. But sometimes people aren't arguing with you on every point like you do, even for points that are agreed on or at least not contradictory

 

[IcebergSlim]

It is a recognition of objective facts......that Hillary is more qualified for the job is Indisputable........ Whether you hate her, love her, or are indifferent....

Personally, I'm not very enthused about Hillary......but that doesn't blind me to the obvious.

Define "qualified"

There's relevant professional experience....... Also the intangibles, such as intelligence and temperament.....

Hillary? "Temperament?" You have to be kidding ...

OK, so she was first lady with no actual power. She was a Senator who voted for Iraq and accomplished shit on her own. Then she was Secretary of State where she sold the time on her schedule for donations to the Clinton foundation. That's her great "professional experience" to be President? Classic.

And what good is experience even if it did exist when she doesn't remember any of it as she testified repeatedly under oath? Don't recall, don't recall, don't recall ...

As for "intelligent," what has she ever pointed out to you that you found insightful? All she does is parrot the Democrat party. Evidence, counselor?

"Evidence", he says......following a series of Bold Assertions.

As the old joke about the bear illustrates, she just has to be faster than the alternative.....

Donald Trump is shockingly shallow and uninformed.....you would NEVER see him take on a hostile congressional committee for several hours.

Your poor government education as evidenced by your inability to quote your native language correctly would certainly be a factor as to why you prefer Democrats.

So I took you apart, and all you have is oh yeah, well Trump's worse! Lame, Larry

Your poor government education as evidenced by your inability to quote your native language correctly would certainly be a factor

WTF?

Read that again......then consider the fact that one of us has stipulated to being the product of a state school

 

[HenryBHough]

Given that all those individuals were fuck-ups then their not endorsing Trump seems very positive.

 

[IcebergSlim]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

Free trade is about more than that, but yeah, that's a big part of it

International trade is predicated on it......

What I said didn't contradict that. I guess my point is more that it's both a broader and a dynamic thing. Free trade increases competition, increases economies of scale, increases the flow of opportunity. Lower costs for the same things for consumers allow cash to be used to buy other things. All those things continually change comparative advantage honing it for the successful and undermining it for the failures.

Really it's about market efficiency. Again, that's not contradicting what you said, comparative advantage is what drives the efficiency. I know you're a "no it's not" debater. But sometimes people aren't arguing with you on every point like you do, even for points that are agreed on or at least not contradictory

Not that you don't have very good reason to be, but you are spectacularly insecure, aren't you?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Given that all those individuals were fuck-ups then their not endorsing Trump seems very positive.

Every living POTUS, SoS and Fed Chair are "fuckups", Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbecile?

 

[kaz]

Rumsfeld and Cheney support Trump which should tell you something.

That's a deal breaker right there....

What you'd say if they supported Hillary, right? Couldn't make the stupid that you are up. I support who I support. No one else's view would change my mind. Maybe their arguments, but that someone supports one side or another would never make me change my vote.

Then again it wouldn't for you either, Larry. You're lying. Don't you have some ugly chicks in a lounge to pick up somewhere?

Mr. 13%'s endorsement should be the Kiss of death for anyone receiving it.....

So seriously, you're arguing that who endorses or doesn't endorse someone either way would change anyone's vote? That's just stupid.

I have no idea where you get this "Larry" thing........

White polyester suit? Larry, lounges, I'll let Google explain it to you

and you would kill every one of your 23 cats to enjoy a brief taste of the kinds of women who have favored me with their attentions.

Wow, I'm humbled. Only a true ladies' man could say that on the internet

 

[kaz]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

Free trade is about more than that, but yeah, that's a big part of it

International trade is predicated on it......

What I said didn't contradict that. I guess my point is more that it's both a broader and a dynamic thing. Free trade increases competition, increases economies of scale, increases the flow of opportunity. Lower costs for the same things for consumers allow cash to be used to buy other things. All those things continually change comparative advantage honing it for the successful and undermining it for the failures.

Really it's about market efficiency. Again, that's not contradicting what you said, comparative advantage is what drives the efficiency. I know you're a "no it's not" debater. But sometimes people aren't arguing with you on every point like you do, even for points that are agreed on or at least not contradictory

Not that you don't have very good reason to be, but you are spectacularly insecure, aren't you?

 

[kaz]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

Free trade is about more than that, but yeah, that's a big part of it

International trade is predicated on it......

What I said didn't contradict that. I guess my point is more that it's both a broader and a dynamic thing. Free trade increases competition, increases economies of scale, increases the flow of opportunity. Lower costs for the same things for consumers allow cash to be used to buy other things. All those things continually change comparative advantage honing it for the successful and undermining it for the failures.

Really it's about market efficiency. Again, that's not contradicting what you said, comparative advantage is what drives the efficiency. I know you're a "no it's not" debater. But sometimes people aren't arguing with you on every point like you do, even for points that are agreed on or at least not contradictory

Not that you don't have very good reason to be, but you are spectacularly insecure, aren't you?

As for the point, your insistence on arguing every post is a sign of your security to you? Fascinating.

So what bothered you exactly about discussing further a post that I didn't disagree with you on?

 

[IcebergSlim]

It is a recognition of objective facts......that Hillary is more qualified for the job is Indisputable........ Whether you hate her, love her, or are indifferent....

Personally, I'm not very enthused about Hillary......but that doesn't blind me to the obvious.

Define "qualified"

There's relevant professional experience....... Also the intangibles, such as intelligence and temperament.....

Hillary? "Temperament?" You have to be kidding ...

OK, so she was first lady with no actual power. She was a Senator who voted for Iraq and accomplished shit on her own. Then she was Secretary of State where she sold the time on her schedule for donations to the Clinton foundation. That's her great "professional experience" to be President? Classic.

And what good is experience even if it did exist when she doesn't remember any of it as she testified repeatedly under oath? Don't recall, don't recall, don't recall ...

As for "intelligent," what has she ever pointed out to you that you found insightful? All she does is parrot the Democrat party. Evidence, counselor?

"Evidence", he says......following a series of Bold Assertions.

As the old joke about the bear illustrates, she just has to be faster than the alternative.....

Donald Trump is shockingly shallow and uninformed.....you would NEVER see him take on a hostile congressional committee for several hours.

Your poor government education as evidenced by your inability to quote your native language correctly would certainly be a factor as to why you prefer Democrats.

So I took you apart, and all you have is oh yeah, well Trump's worse! Lame, Larry

So I took you apart,

You're quite deluded about the power of your gainsaying...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yeah.....you are describing Autarky.....it has nothing to do with "free market capitalism", and has a solid record of consistent failure......the experiments enjoy shorter lifespans than its communist cousins...

Nope, I am describing free market capitalism within the US economy, no economic isolationism, replacing multilateral trade agreements that drive US jobs to less developed countries with cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations and replacing them with bilateral trade agreements such as we had before the Clintons.

Calling it free market and saying no free trade is an oxymoron. Either we decide what business we want to engage in or the government does. That you can go out in the yard an hour a day in your prison doesn't make you a free man

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

 

[IcebergSlim]

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

Free trade is about more than that, but yeah, that's a big part of it

International trade is predicated on it......

What I said didn't contradict that. I guess my point is more that it's both a broader and a dynamic thing. Free trade increases competition, increases economies of scale, increases the flow of opportunity. Lower costs for the same things for consumers allow cash to be used to buy other things. All those things continually change comparative advantage honing it for the successful and undermining it for the failures.

Really it's about market efficiency. Again, that's not contradicting what you said, comparative advantage is what drives the efficiency. I know you're a "no it's not" debater. But sometimes people aren't arguing with you on every point like you do, even for points that are agreed on or at least not contradictory

Not that you don't have very good reason to be, but you are spectacularly insecure, aren't you?

As for the point, your insistence on arguing every post is a sign of your security to you? Fascinating.

So what bothered you exactly about discussing further a post that I didn't disagree with you on?

I know you're a "no it's not" debater. But sometimes people aren't arguing with you on every point like you do, even for points that are agreed on or at least not contradictory

I thought it sporting of me to grant you the last word....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Nope, I am describing free market capitalism within the US economy, no economic isolationism, replacing multilateral trade agreements that drive US jobs to less developed countries with cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations and replacing them with bilateral trade agreements such as we had before the Clintons.

Calling it free market and saying no free trade is an oxymoron. Either we decide what business we want to engage in or the government does. That you can go out in the yard an hour a day in your prison doesn't make you a free man

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

One applies to sports, the other is an economic principle....