Political Roundtable Part XXII

[GhostofChenier]

you'll notice that the article criticizes the banking practices, not the science of climate change.

if that is the point you're trying to make, i think many on this board will sympathize. however, thus far, your position has been that climate change is a hoax enacted so that banks can engage in these lending practices and that is not the same argument.

I have say at least 10 time cc is *exaggerates* not hoax. Exaggerate is symptom of grant/research/loan system built around a scientific “fact” which is very basic.

Climate changes, carbon has impact. But reaction inflated. While industry now for a simple fact, but more fear more donate for grant and more power for IPCC to force loan on all nation.

Yes excess carbon has impact any person knows this. But level of impact is unclear and timing. Reaction inflated not for science purpose, but many others (finance politic) snowball down hill too late to stop. Too many industry rely on “you cannot dispute fact” statements. This is not science. Science always reevaluate, retest.

This is business.

Climate change is not exaggerated in fact it's probably understated. There are record high temperatures and extreme weather events occurring with more regularity. The time to address climate change is now not when things start to get extreme.

As for the article it doesn't support your claim that it's exaggerated. The author is trying to argue that developing economies should be allowed to pollute because more developed economies pollute more. No it doesn't work like that. All loans come with conditions and while I have criticisms of the world bank addressing climate change should absolutely be a condition of accepting the loan. It's not either or. Developed countries should be reducing their CO2 emissions even more than developing nations but at the same time developing nations should grow in a way that keeps these emissions in check.

You still haven't answered what the better options to reducing CO2 emissions is other than do nothing. What are some alternative mechanisms?

This is problem, there are conflict studies by science who agree co2 is issue. But they disagree strongly on effect.

Again not hoax but problem weight is never final definition in science. It is fluid over time period, with endless research.

Many scientist disagree with fast warmth. But yo do not here as IPCC does not grant them free monies, movies and documentary.

If you say science “is definite fact” you do not grasp the idea of science. You do grasp idea of science weapon for politic.

[Ruzious]

I have say at least 10 time cc is *exaggerates* not hoax. Exaggerate is symptom of grant/research/loan system built around a scientific “fact” which is very basic.

Climate changes, carbon has impact. But reaction inflated. While industry now for a simple fact, but more fear more donate for grant and more power for IPCC to force loan on all nation.

Yes excess carbon has impact any person knows this. But level of impact is unclear and timing. Reaction inflated not for science purpose, but many others (finance politic) snowball down hill too late to stop. Too many industry rely on “you cannot dispute fact” statements. This is not science. Science always reevaluate, retest.

This is business.

Climate change is not exaggerated in fact it's probably understated. There are record high temperatures and extreme weather events occurring with more regularity. The time to address climate change is now not when things start to get extreme.

As for the article it doesn't support your claim that it's exaggerated. The author is trying to argue that developing economies should be allowed to pollute because more developed economies pollute more. No it doesn't work like that. All loans come with conditions and while I have criticisms of the world bank addressing climate change should absolutely be a condition of accepting the loan. It's not either or. Developed countries should be reducing their CO2 emissions even more than developing nations but at the same time developing nations should grow in a way that keeps these emissions in check.

You still haven't answered what the better options to reducing CO2 emissions is other than do nothing. What are some alternative mechanisms?

This is problem, there are conflict studies by science who agree co2 is issue. But they disagree strongly on effect.

Again not hoax but problem weight is never final definition in science. It is fluid over time period, with endless research.

Many scientist disagree with fast warmth. But yo do not here as IPCC does not grant them free monies, movies and documentary.

If you say science “is definite fact” you do not grasp the idea of science. You do grasp idea of science weapon for politic.

Question for you: What reason - other than caring about the world - would liberals or anyone else have for wanting to change behavior in order to reduce and/or avoid global warming?

[pancakes3]

i guess i'll have to start carrying around an endless sack of apples around with me so i can test if the concept of gravity still holds.

[verbal8]

i guess i'll have to start carrying around an endless sack of apples around with me so i can test if the concept of gravity still holds.

Is this before or after the trip around the world to disprove the "flat earthers"?

[pancakes3]

i guess i'll have to start carrying around an endless sack of apples around with me so i can test if the concept of gravity still holds.

Is this before or after the trip around the world to disprove the "flat earthers"?

one trip is not enough. there needs to be multiple trips to ensure the continued roundness of the earth, because earth-shape-determinations is ever-fluid. ever-changing.

[Jamaaliver]

He can't change the overall trade deficit - but he can and is shifting it. Do you have a problem with that?

Adding to this - why do you think we have a net trade deficit. The "argument" (bolded and italicized) below is only a small part of the reason.

Trump can't change it...but he can shift it?

I don't understand what that means, honestly.






The reason for trade deficits is much too lengthy and complex for me to adequately describe here. I'll leave that to much smarter men than myself.

An extremely basic, shortened reason for the reason we have such a trade deficit with China specifically:

The US Dollar is strong...and China makes a ton of cheap crap that Americans buy.

(Also, we consider it an import when US companies manufacture products overseas and then ship them back stateside.)

[dckingsfan]

He can't change the overall trade deficit - but he can and is shifting it. Do you have a problem with that?

Adding to this - why do you think we have a net trade deficit. The "argument" (bolded and italicized) below is only a small part of the reason.

Trump can't change it...but he can shift it?

I don't understand what that means, honestly.

Gotcha - by imposing tariffs on a specific country he makes those goods and services more expensive or by contrast, goods and services less expensive. So, China "loses" business to other countries.

Trump shifts where our deficits are going.

The reason for trade deficits is much too lengthy and complex for me to adequately describe here. I'll leave that to much smarter men than myself.

I'll make it simple - it is our own deficits. When those deficits are "sold" abroad, they are funded by trade deficits (although indirectly). If Trump wanted to stem our trade deficits he wouldn't have passed a tax bill that drastically increased those deficits.

An extremely basic, shortened reason for the reason we have such a trade deficit with China specifically:

The US Dollar is strong...and China makes a ton of cheap crap that Americans buy.

(Also, we consider it an import when US companies manufacture products overseas and then ship them back stateside.)

Even when the dollar wasn't strong, we still had those trade deficits. That is why the article was flawed

[gtn130]

Are we sure GoC isn't an SD20 burner account?

[Jamaaliver]

An extremely basic, shortened reason for the reason we have such a trade deficit with China specifically:

The US Dollar is strong...and China makes a ton of cheap crap that Americans buy.

(Also, we consider it an import when US companies manufacture products overseas and then ship them back stateside.)

Even when the dollar wasn't strong, we still had those trade deficits. That is why the article was flawed

uhhhhhhh

The chart you provided reflects a clear correlation to the strength of the US Dollar and the growing trade imbalance. As the dollar has strengthened, the deficit has widened. It even shrank during the great recession as the dollar weakened.




A 1998 speech to the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade
Committee on International Relations
United States House of Representatives:

The most important economic truth to grasp about the U.S. trade deficit is that it has virtually nothing to do with trade policy. A nation’s trade deficit is determined by the flow of investment funds into or out of the country.

The causal link between investment flows, exchange rates, and the balance of trade explains why protectionism cannot cure a trade deficit.

The stronger dollar would make U.S. exports more expensive for foreign consumers and imports more attractive to Americans. Exports would fall and imports would rise until the trade balance matched the savings and investment balance.

Without a change in aggregate levels of savings and investment, the trade deficit would remain largely unaffected. All the new tariff barriers would accomplish would be to reduce the volume of both imports and exports, leaving Americans poorer by depriving them of additional gains from the specialization that accompanies expanding international trade.

One way to reduce the trade deficit would be for Americans to save more. A larger pool of national savings would reduce demand for foreign capital; with less foreign capital flowing into the country, the gap between what we buy from abroad and what we sell would shrink.

Despite substantial progress in the last 10 years, [China's] barriers to imports remain relatively high. Those barriers partly explain the bilateral surplus China runs with the United States, but the primary explanation is more benign: We like to consume the products China sells. In 1995 the Council of Economic Advisers concluded, “China’s persistent surplus with the United States in part reflects its specialization in inexpensive mass-market consumer goods. China similarly runs bilateral surpluses with Japan and Europe for this reason.”

Misunderstanding of the trade deficit threatens to undermine the freedom to trade by encouraging faulty and damaging “solutions” to a problem that does not exist. Any attempt to fix the trade deficit through protectionism, export subsidies, or currency manipulation is bound to fail because none of those tools of intervention addresses the underlying causes of the trade deficit.

The CATO Institute

[Jamaaliver]

Are we sure GoC isn't an SD20 burner account?

Looking at his post/And1 history...it appears this is a strong possibility.

[dckingsfan]

Again flawed - it isn't "personal" savings that will do it. Not when the federal government is spending like a bunch of drunken sailors. I love how they casually gloss over this point.

Until we get our federal deficit spending down, other countries will fund this debt. And that will lead to a flow of goods and services against the debt.

The reason they don't bring that up? They want to keep spending.

And again, Trump is just moving where the goods and services would come from - and I don't have a problem with that. Even with China manipulating its currency, it can't keep up with the tariffs.

An extremely basic, shortened reason for the reason we have such a trade deficit with China specifically:

The US Dollar is strong...and China makes a ton of cheap crap that Americans buy.

(Also, we consider it an import when US companies manufacture products overseas and then ship them back stateside.)

Even when the dollar wasn't strong, we still had those trade deficits. That is why the article was flawed

uhhhhhhh

The chart you provided reflects a clear correlation to the strength of the US Dollar and the growing trade imbalance. As the dollar has strengthened, the deficit has widened. It even shrank during the great recession as the dollar weakened.




A 1998 speech to the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade
Committee on International Relations
United States House of Representatives

The most important economic truth to grasp about the U.S. trade deficit is that it has virtually nothing to do with trade policy. A nation’s trade deficit is determined by the flow of investment funds into or out of the country.

The causal link between investment flows, exchange rates, and the balance of trade explains why protectionism cannot cure a trade deficit.

The stronger dollar would make U.S. exports more expensive for foreign consumers and imports more attractive to Americans. Exports would fall and imports would rise until the trade balance matched the savings and investment balance.

Without a change in aggregate levels of savings and investment, the trade deficit would remain largely unaffected. All the new tariff barriers would accomplish would be to reduce the volume of both imports and exports, leaving Americans poorer by depriving them of additional gains from the specialization that accompanies expanding international trade.

One way to reduce the trade deficit would be for Americans to save more. A larger pool of national savings would reduce demand for foreign capital; with less foreign capital flowing into the country, the gap between what we buy from abroad and what we sell would shrink.

Despite substantial progress in the last 10 years, [China's] barriers to imports remain relatively high. Those barriers partly explain the bilateral surplus China runs with the United States, but the primary explanation is more benign: We like to consume the products China sells. In 1995 the Council of Economic Advisers concluded, “China’s persistent surplus with the United States in part reflects its specialization in inexpensive mass-market consumer goods. China similarly runs bilateral surpluses with Japan and Europe for this reason.”

Misunderstanding of the trade deficit threatens to undermine the freedom to trade by encouraging faulty and damaging “solutions” to a problem that does not exist. Any attempt to fix the trade deficit through protectionism, export subsidies, or currency manipulation is bound to fail because none of those tools of intervention addresses the underlying causes of the trade deficit.

The CATO Institute

[dckingsfan]

Also, the Yuan has strengthened against the dollar

[Jamaaliver]

Again flawed - it isn't "personal" savings that will do it. Not when the federal government is spending like a bunch of drunken sailors. I love how they casually gloss over this point.

Until we get our federal deficit spending down, other countries will fund this debt. And that will lead to a flow of goods and services against the debt.

It's all greek to me:

That same 1998 speech to the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade
Committee on International Relations
United States House of Representatives

As economist Douglas Irwin explains, “If a country is buying more goods and services from the rest of the world than it is selling, the country must also be selling more assets to the rest of the world than it is buying.”

Thus, a nation that saves more than it invests will export its excess savings in the form of net foreign investment.

A nation that invests more than it saves - the United States, for example - must import capital from abroad. In other words, it must run a capital account surplus. The imported capital allows the nation’s citizens to consume more goods and services than they produce, importing the difference through a trade deficit.

Without a change in aggregate levels of savings and investment, the trade deficit would remain largely unaffected. All the new tariff barriers would accomplish would be to reduce the volume of both imports and exports, leaving Americans poorer by depriving them of additional gains from the specialization that accompanies expanding international trade.

Far from being a drag, a trade deficit can be a good sign for an economy when it reflects growing demand for imports. When an economy expands, consumers are able to afford more goods, both domestic and imported. Returns on investment also increase, attracting foreign capital. The combination of inflowing capital and increased demand for imports tends to widen the trade deficit. That explains why every recent U.S. economic expansion has been accompanied by an expanding trade deficit.

If the aim of Congress is to eliminate the trade deficit, then we must either increase national savings or reduce investment.

When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, there is no emergency. The current trade deficit is not a sign of economic distress, but of rising domestic demand and investment.

The CATO Institute

[Jamaaliver]

Also, the Yuan has strengthened against the dollar

I'm not sure you're reading that correctly.



And I'm kind of losing interest in the topic.

(I can't pretend to know the ins and out of currency manipulation and how it affects trade deficits)





^This was fun, though!

[I_Like_Dirt]

Until we get our federal deficit spending down, other countries will fund this debt. And that will lead to a flow of goods and services against the debt.

The thing about this is that government spending, as a % of GDP, isn't a category where the US ranks particularly high overall. The flip side to that is that government revenues as a % of GDP aren't actually all that high, either, hence the deficit. Consumer spending is a massive portion of the economy relative the rest of the world, squeezing out both investment and even government spending. I'd suggest that a strong reliance on consumer spending is fairly likely to result in trade deficits.

This isn't to say the deficit isn't a major issue, because it is. Far moreso than the trade deficit, I'd suggest - I'm not even convinced the trade deficit is a bad thing, though perhaps representative of advantages America currently has. I'm just not convinced that the deficit is particularly related to those trade deficits overall. Relying on people buying things significantly more than the rest of the industrialized world is likely going to result in a trade deficit.

[Pointgod]

I have say at least 10 time cc is *exaggerates* not hoax. Exaggerate is symptom of grant/research/loan system built around a scientific “fact” which is very basic.

Climate changes, carbon has impact. But reaction inflated. While industry now for a simple fact, but more fear more donate for grant and more power for IPCC to force loan on all nation.

Yes excess carbon has impact any person knows this. But level of impact is unclear and timing. Reaction inflated not for science purpose, but many others (finance politic) snowball down hill too late to stop. Too many industry rely on “you cannot dispute fact” statements. This is not science. Science always reevaluate, retest.

This is business.

Climate change is not exaggerated in fact it's probably understated. There are record high temperatures and extreme weather events occurring with more regularity. The time to address climate change is now not when things start to get extreme.

As for the article it doesn't support your claim that it's exaggerated. The author is trying to argue that developing economies should be allowed to pollute because more developed economies pollute more. No it doesn't work like that. All loans come with conditions and while I have criticisms of the world bank addressing climate change should absolutely be a condition of accepting the loan. It's not either or. Developed countries should be reducing their CO2 emissions even more than developing nations but at the same time developing nations should grow in a way that keeps these emissions in check.

You still haven't answered what the better options to reducing CO2 emissions is other than do nothing. What are some alternative mechanisms?

This is problem, there are conflict studies by science who agree co2 is issue. But they disagree strongly on effect.

Again not hoax but problem weight is never final definition in science. It is fluid over time period, with endless research.

Many scientist disagree with fast warmth. But yo do not here as IPCC does not grant them free monies, movies and documentary.

If you say science “is definite fact” you do not grasp the idea of science. You do grasp idea of science weapon for politic.

Why are you avoiding answering this question?

You still haven't answered what the better options to reducing CO2 emissions is other than do nothing. What are some alternative mechanisms?

Yes science is the pursuit of knowledge and as a result theories and hypotheses are constantly tested and challenged. There's a scientific review process that's heavily scrutinized. 97% of scientists agree with climate change. There aren't alot of millionaire or billionaire scientists out there. You present the matter like it's 50-50. To put things in perspective for every 3 scientific studies denying climate change you'd have to post 97 scientific studies that support it. The evidence is so overwhelming in support of climate change that only fools wouldn't take it seriously.

[dckingsfan]

Until we get our federal deficit spending down, other countries will fund this debt. And that will lead to a flow of goods and services against the debt.

The thing about this is that government spending, as a % of GDP, isn't a category where the US ranks particularly high overall. The flip side to that is that government revenues as a % of GDP aren't actually all that high, either, hence the deficit. Consumer spending is a massive portion of the economy relative the rest of the world, squeezing out both investment and even government spending. I'd suggest that a strong reliance on consumer spending is fairly likely to result in trade deficits.

This isn't to say the deficit isn't a major issue, because it is. Far moreso than the trade deficit, I'd suggest - I'm not even convinced the trade deficit is a bad thing, though perhaps representative of advantages America currently has. I'm just not convinced that the deficit is particularly related to those trade deficits overall. Relying on people buying things significantly more than the rest of the industrialized world is likely going to result in a trade deficit.

Actually, the only point I was making there was why we will end up with a trade deficit. And the correlation between our growing deficits and the trade deficit.

And one thing - you should look at total government (local, state and federal) spending vs. revenues when making your calculation.

[dckingsfan]

@Jamaaliver - what is the point you are trying to get at?

My point is that Trump's tariffs aren't a bad thing in context - namely moving the purchase of goods and services to other countries.

You haven't answered the question: do you think this is a bad thing?

If you want to get at the why we have trade deficits or the ramifications of those trade deficits. Happy to have that conversation with you as well.

[Jamaaliver]

@Jamaaliver - what is the point you are trying to get at?

My point is that Trump's tariffs aren't a bad thing in context - namely moving the purchase of goods and services to other countries.

Something along the lines of these tariffs, put in place to curb IP misappropriation by China and limit the widening trade deficit, are ill-advised.

If this administration wanted to get tough with China,then staying in the TPP and forming an economic bloc with a dozen other countries would have been a better approach.

These tariffs will simply get passed on to US consumers and companies as higher prices, depressing the same economic gains DJT continues to tout.

Trump has been blessed with amazing economic growth the last few years (although an alarming amount of income disparity), but seems determined to undermine that growth with outdated, ineffective protectionist trade policies.

[dckingsfan]

@Jamaaliver - what is the point you are trying to get at?

My point is that Trump's tariffs aren't a bad thing in context - namely moving the purchase of goods and services to other countries.

Something along the lines of these tariffs, put in place to curb IP misappropriation by China and limit the widening trade deficit, are ill-advised.

If this administration wanted to get tough with China,then staying in the TPP and forming an economic bloc with a dozen other countries would have been a better approach.

These tariffs will simply get passed on to US consumers and companies as higher prices, depressing the same economic gains DJT continues to tout.

Trump has been blessed with amazing economic growth the last few years (although an alarming amount of income disparity), but seems determined to undermine that growth with outdated, ineffective protectionist trade policies.

So, you don't want to answer the question: Trump's tariffs aren't a bad thing in context - namely moving the purchase of goods and services to other countries.

yes, no?

My answer is yes. I don't want us to pull another Trump and reverse everything Obama did even if it is helpful when the next POTUS rolls into office.

And no, just staying the TPP wouldn't be getting tough on China