Here is trumps way to get the wall up-With mexico paying!

[housepicks]

who said they were the lowest earners?

 

I think you are too high on your horse to really have any perspective.

[joeybagadonuts]

who said they were the lowest earners?

 

I think you are too high on your horse to really have any perspective.

Fine substitute low skill level.

 

Anyone can be a factory button pusher. It involves zero skill and a little on job training.

 

Why should we save those jobs that can be done in 3rd world countries for cheaper? I'm fine paying less as a consumer as a result of this.

[Timely Hitting]

Democrats now realize the wall is going up, and the mexicans ARE going to pay for it, now they're relegated to arguing  about the details...and the merit of it. Why aren't you guys laughing and mocking trump anymore?

If a 20% tax was imposed the Mexican's wouldn't be paying for the wall, American consumers would be.

 

You don't understand that, but that's not too surprising.

[KingRevolver]

Trumptards get so mad when facts are thrown around.

[housepicks]

I have to go to sleep so I can dig a ditch tomorrow.

 

Can someone please tell me what the results are for a country with a large global trade deficit?

 

Thanks

[Timely Hitting]

I have to go to sleep so I can dig a ditch tomorrow.

 

Can someone please tell me what the results are for a country with a large global trade deficit?

 

Thanks

I could post more facts but you wouldn't believe them anyway.

 

I will say, in the history of this country, the larger the trade deficits the better the state of the economy.

[Timely Hitting]

I didn't write this, but easier than writing something up myself.

 

Monkey and I have had this discussion before already in a thread somewhere.

 

The argument that trade deficits lead to foreign workers doing manufacturing work that otherwise would be done domestically makes sense on its surface. However, economic trends measured in the U.S. since the early 1970s do not bear it out. During the 26-year period from 1973 to 2009, the U.S.' current account deficit (measured as a percentage of GDP) grew during 15 of those years and shrank during 11 of them. The nation's economy, measured by real GDP growth, performed better during the years of rising trade deficits than it did when the deficit was shrinking. The average rate of economic growth was 3.2% during the rising deficit years, compared to 2.3% during the shrinking deficit years.

 

 

GDP is not the only economic indicator that has historically improved in the U.S. as trade deficits have risen. Unemployment fell by an average of 0.4% during years with a growing trade deficit and rose by 0.4% in those years when the trade deficit shrank.

 

Analysts point to inexpensive capital, consumer confidence and low inflation as beneficial byproducts of trade deficits, particularly in the U.S. The strong U.S. dollar enables the country to obtain capital more cheaply from abroad than can be produced domestically. Once obtained, that capital is used by domestic firms and manufacturers to grow, expand, and develop new innovations and technologies. While the work of producing basic capital is performed abroad, domestic companies use that capital to grow, which creates better, higher-paying jobs at home.

[mikeman]

If a 20% tax was imposed the Mexican's wouldn't be paying for the wall, American consumers would be.

 

You don't understand that, but that's not too surprising.

Spicer doesn't know shit,a 20% tax would raise 50 billion in a year,5 times what it will cost to build the wall. I do understand economics, if the goods coming in from mexico are in high demand and cant be replaced with US goods, yes, we will pay for it, but if not, prices will not go up, and what will happen is the mexican factory's making these goods for US sale will close.

 

Having said that trade wars hurt everyone, the most sensible resolution is for the mexicans to simply pay for the wall,  i predict there will be threats and counter threats, and in the end the mexicans will have no choice but to deal(trump knows this), they will make an embarrassing deal and the current president will resign in disgrace, the new president will inherit the new reality, the new reality will be a wall ...and a sense of order. Trump is a genius.

[KingRevolver]

Spicer doesn't know shit,a 20% tax would raise 50 billion in a year,5 times what it will cost to build the wall. I do understand economics, if the goods coming in from mexico are in high demand and cant be replaced with US goods, yes, we will pay for it, but if not, prices will not go up, and what will happen is the mexican factory's making these goods for US sale will close.

 

Having said that trade wars hurt everyone, the most sensible resolution is for the mexicans to simply pay for the wall, i predict there will be threats and counter threats, and in the end the mexicans will have no choice but to deal(trump knows this), they will make an embarrassing deal and the current president will resign in disgrace, the new president will inherit the new reality, the new reality will be a wall ...and a sense of order. Trump is a genius.

http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/208.gif

[mikeman]

Poor kinger, doesn't know how to fill a radiator and he's trying to talk economics.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I didn't write this, but easier than writing something up myself.

 

Monkey and I have had this discussion before already in a thread somewhere.

 

The argument that trade deficits lead to foreign workers doing manufacturing work that otherwise would be done domestically makes sense on its surface. However, economic trends measured in the U.S. since the early 1970s do not bear it out. During the 26-year period from 1973 to 2009, the U.S.' current account deficit (measured as a percentage of GDP) grew during 15 of those years and shrank during 11 of them. The nation's economy, measured by real GDP growth, performed better during the years of rising trade deficits than it did when the deficit was shrinking. The average rate of economic growth was 3.2% during the rising deficit years, compared to 2.3% during the shrinking deficit years.

 

 

GDP is not the only economic indicator that has historically improved in the U.S. as trade deficits have risen. Unemployment fell by an average of 0.4% during years with a growing trade deficit and rose by 0.4% in those years when the trade deficit shrank.

 

Analysts point to inexpensive capital, consumer confidence and low inflation as beneficial byproducts of trade deficits, particularly in the U.S. The strong U.S. dollar enables the country to obtain capital more cheaply from abroad than can be produced domestically. Once obtained, that capital is used by domestic firms and manufacturers to grow, expand, and develop new innovations and technologies. While the work of producing basic capital is performed abroad, domestic companies use that capital to grow, which creates better, higher-paying jobs at home.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Terrible inference by whomever wrote that article.

 

Rising trade deficits for a country with trade imbalances are the result of a better economy.  Not the other way around.  More consumer spending yields a higher trade deficit.  Higher trade deficits do not spur an economy.  Common sense.

 

Not one country except for the United States in recent years has survived a prolonged trade deficit.  Bucking the overwhelming trend can only last so long.

[Bigrunner]

Democrats now realize the wall is going up, and the mexicans ARE going to pay for it, now they're relegated to arguing about the details...and the merit of it. Why aren't you guys laughing and mocking trump anymore?

What are you more sure of? Your above comments or your previous comment that your illegal President would have already signed an executive order moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? I know you were very confident about the latter.

[Fecal Tornado]

https://www.facebook.com/TheConservativePunk/videos/565923446938966/

 

 

 

LOL

[housepicks]

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Terrible inference by whomever wrote that article.

 

Rising trade deficits for a country with trade imbalances are the result of a better economy. Not the other way around. More consumer spending yields a higher trade deficit. Higher trade deficits do not spur an economy. Common sense.

 

Not one country except for the United States in recent years has survived a prolonged trade deficit. Bucking the overwhelming trend can only last so long.

That was a terrible article timely posted. As with the tidbit figures he posted to firm up his reasoning for nafta being a good deal. Correlation is all he has.

[housepicks]

Trade deficits must be financed. A country simply cannot have a trade deficit unless private or government investors are willing to finance it. This is not simply an accounting convention – it is real debt.

 

Normally trade deficits are self correcting because as the deficit grows the country’s currency usually begins to decline in price in the world market. This makes exported goods less expensive and foreign goods more expensive and trade is supposed to balance itself. In the case of America this balance is not happening because many of our trading partners have figured out how to manipulate their currencies to keep the dollar value high so that they can continue to increase our imports. China and Japan are the biggest manipulators but Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, Singapore and Malaysia are also currency manipulators

[housepicks]

In an article by Dan Dimicco, chairman emeritus of Nucor Corporation, he says, “National income accounting makes it clear that gross domestic product is the sum of four factors: consumption, investment, government procurement and net trade (exports minus imports).That’s net trade — not gross trade. In other words, net exports increase our economic size while net imports shrink it.”

 

He goes on to explain, in 2013, net trade subtracted about 3% from our economy (because imports exceeded exports). This shrinkage is cumulative, compounding year after year.” In the case of America we have had trade deficits for 39 years and it is now more than an $8 trillion debt.

 

But why isn’t the government, Wall Street, multinational corporations, and many pundits and bloggers worried about the growing trade deficit? Why is the trade deficit largely ignored while everyone is more concerned about the federal deficit? Wall Street, the Multi-national corporations and the Obama Administration have adopted a policy of appeasement where foreign mercantilism seems to be irrelevant and attempts at balancing trade are ignored. It is as if the trade deficit is an open ended charge account that is simply an accounting summary that will never have to be paid back.

[housepicks]

All of our trading partners (competitors) understand trade deficits and they do something about them. When Mexico agreed to eliminate a tariff on imported goods from the U.S. they immediately enacted a 15% value added tax on U.S. imports. When the countries in the CAFTA agreement dropped their tariffs, most of these countries replaced the tariffs with a 12% consumption tax on imports. In fact, 148 of our trading partners have a value added tax (VAT) or goods and service tax (GST), and they range from 2% to 27%. These are a form of a consumption tax and they are levied in a number of different ways,

[housepicks]

 

The so called free traders (be they Democrat or Republican) are not really free traders. They are supporters of mercantile trade where countries like China and Japan get to manipulate their currencies and use VATs against us to increase their exports and reduce their imports from us. Even though there is a provision in the WTO agreement that prohibits currency manipulation we do nothing about it.

[Timely Hitting]

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Terrible inference by whomever wrote that article.

 

Rising trade deficits for a country with trade imbalances are the result of a better economy. Not the other way around. More consumer spending yields a higher trade deficit. Higher trade deficits do not spur an economy. Common sense.

 

Not one country except for the United States in recent years has survived a prolonged trade deficit. Bucking the overwhelming trend can only last so long.

This is your opinion. There are plenty of economists who agree with the point I posted and some who agree with you. We've already had this debate and it's going nowhere. You claimed trade deficits were taught as being bad in Econ, I informed you that is an archaic way of thinking and it is no longer taught that way in school. To each his own.

 

I can post plenty of pieces that state the same thing as the above from countless respected economists.

[Timely Hitting]

In other news we have our president tweeting about infowars conspiracy theories citing some nut jobs tweet as his source for 3 million illegal votes at 7am. This is just so embarrassing. That I think we agree on monkey.

[housepicks]

February 2014 report from the Economic Policy Institute shows that trade deficits have contributed to the elimination of 5.7 million American jobs over 15 years. Even though President Obama promised to hold China accountable in the last election, he has done nothing about currency manipulation. So the primary losers under our current policy of accepting growing trade deficits are working people, U.S. manufacturing, communities, states, and many industries.

The U.S. free traders naively carry the banner of free trade in the global war, as we continue to grow the trade deficit, lose jobs, and go deeper into debt.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/01/15/americas-trade-deficit-the-job-killer/?client=safari

 

 

Gotta be an idiot to think trade deficit is a good thing. Except for Joe, because he lives on the Planet Joe.

Population 1. As long as his job is safe and he likes the price of his newest gadget Planet Joe is doing well.

[Cop]

In other news we have our president tweeting about infowars conspiracy theories citing some nut jobs tweet as his source for 3 million illegal votes at 7am. This is just so embarrassing. That I think we agree on monkey.

It's actually genius. Voter Id here we come!!!!

[jasson621]

In other news we have our president tweeting about infowars conspiracy theories citing some nut jobs tweet as his source for 3 million illegal votes at 7am. This is just so embarrassing. That I think we agree on monkey.

 

Or he knows exactly what he is doing, he is going to have an investigation that will lead to tighter restrictions and oversight on voting. The libs keep whining and he will keep winning fun for me to watch and he gets you guys( I know you're not a full blown libtard) every time.

[Timely Hitting]

It's actually genius. Voter Id here we come!!!!

Yeah suppressing the vote..the new American way.

 

I thought you believed in the democracy and the constitution and the right to vote but apparently you don't. Instead you're about voter suppression and preventing the poor from having a right to vote. You go Cop!

 

You can't even admit the guy peddling conspiracy theories is embarrassing. I didn't think it before but you may be a lost cause. Blinded.

[housepicks]

You claimed trade deficits were taught as being bad in Econ, I informed you that is an archaic way of thinking and it is no longer taught that way in school.

Funny