Mark Levin: Trump's trade policies will harm America

https://youtu.be/FG-nB9lLUIM

https://youtu.be/FG-nB9lLUIM Originally Posted by Tiny

you recently postulated that if there was no federal deficit, then unfair/imbalanced trade wouldn't be an issue.


so if there was no "fed reserve" deficit, would you OK with unfair trade? YES or NO?

you recently postulated that if there was no federal deficit, then unfair/imbalanced trade wouldn't be an issue.


so if there was no "fed reserve" deficit, would you OK with unfair trade? YES or NO? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That's not what I said. I said that the current account equals the change in national savings minus the change in national investment. This is not a postulate, it's a fact, like 1+1=2 is a fact. If the U.S. government, individuals and businesses collectively saved more than they invested, then there would be no current account or trade deficit. The U.S. federal government budget deficit in 2019 will be around $1 trillion, or 5% of GDP. Households and corporations in recent years on the other hand have been net savers.

The question you posed doesn't make sense. What is a "fed reserve" deficit?

That's not what I said. I said that the current account equals the change in national savings minus the change in national investment. This is not a postulate, it's a fact, like 1+1=2 is a fact. If the U.S. government, individuals and businesses collectively saved more than they invested, then there would be no current account or trade deficit. The U.S. federal government budget deficit in 2019 will be around $1 trillion, or 5% of GDP. Households and corporations in recent years on the other hand have been net savers.

The question you posed doesn't make sense. What is a "fed reserve" deficit? Originally Posted by Tiny

isn't it?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act


now about that deficit you posted about ..


You and Trump and Sanders believe, "When one country is running trade deficeits for decades, this suggest that something is amiss with trade policy."

just a snapshot of what you posted but here it is ...


https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1060703122&postcount=3

So, again, as Assup the pig likes to ask ...


"If there was no deficit, would you agree to UNFAIR trade to the US?

now if you want to start a tread about this ... go ahead ..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

i doubt either of us would call this a good idea ... yes or no?

I still don't understand what the "fed reserve" deficit is. Do you mean federal government budget deficit? Trade or current account deficit?

The Fed runs a surplus, not a deficit. Its assets, mostly U.S. government securities and mortgage backed securities, exceed its liabilities, which are mostly bank notes in circulation and reserves held by member banks with the Fed.

You also need to define "unfair trade", maybe a few examples of unfair trade would help.

I still don't understand what the "fed reserve" deficit is. Do you mean federal government budget deficit? Trade or current account deficit?

The Fed runs a surplus, not a deficit. Its assets, mostly U.S. government securities and mortgage backed securities, exceed its liabilities, which are mostly bank notes in circulation and reserves held by member banks with the Fed.

You also need to define "unfair trade", maybe a few examples of unfair trade would help. Originally Posted by Tiny

then why are we .. the US at large .. supposedly 20+ TRILLION in debt? to whom exactly?

if you don't understand the question, don't try to answer.

You also need to define "unfair trade", maybe a few examples of unfair trade would help. Originally Posted by Tiny

japan is a good example of unfair trade. they send cars & electronics over under free trade but probibit U.S. rice & beef entering their market and those are marked up at high tarriff rates..


that is one form of unfair trade.


another one is one where a product is subsidized by the govt that is cheap enough to sell in foreign markets in an effort to dominate that market.

then why are we .. the US at large .. supposedly 20+ TRILLION in debt? to whom exactly? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Shit, that's easy. Federal Budgeting 101. We're in debt because the federal govt spends more than it takes in every year. It runs an annual spending deficit. It finances this deficit by selling US Treasury obligations (bills, notes and bonds). Each year the total debt goes up by the amount of the annual deficit that needed to be financed.

(This deficit is entirely different and distinct from our annual foreign trade and current-account balance of payments deficits... but I digress.)

To whom do we owe the $20+ trillion of national debt? Mostly ourselves. The Social Security Trust Fund holds a big chunk, as do other federal govt agencies. The Federal Reserve carries a lot of it too, especially after aggressively buying up Treasuries during its repeated bouts of "quantitative easing" in recent years. Foreigners hold about a third. Here's an updated summary. Google is your friend.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-...l-debt-3306124

Shit, that's easy. Federal Budgeting 101. We're in debt because the federal govt spends more than it takes in every year. It runs an annual spending deficit. It finances this deficit by selling US Treasury obligations (bills, notes and bonds). Each year the total debt goes up by the amount of the annual deficit that needs to be financed.

(This deficit is entirely different and distinct from our annual foreign trade and current-account balance of payments deficits, but I digress.)

To whom do we owe the $20+ trillion of national debt? Mostly ourselves. The Social Security Trust Fund holds a big chunk, as do other federal govt agencies. The Federal Reserve carries a lot of it too, especially after aggressively buying up Treasuries during its repeated bouts of "quantitative easing" in recent years. Foreigners hold about a third. Here's an updated summary. Google is your friend.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-...l-debt-3306124 Originally Posted by lustylad

You're quite right....I'm just wondering when this is all going to come crashing down on the economy...akin to the Weimar Republic!!

Shit, that's easy. Federal Budgeting 101. We're in debt because the federal govt spends more than it takes in every year. It runs an annual spending deficit. It finances this deficit by selling US Treasury obligations (bills, notes and bonds). Each year the total debt goes up by the amount of the annual deficit that needs to be financed.

(This deficit is entirely different and distinct from our annual foreign trade or current account deficits, but I digress.)

To whom do we owe the $20+ trillion of national debt? Mostly ourselves. The Social Security Trust Fund holds a big chunk, as do other federal govt agencies. The Federal Reserve carries a lot of it, especially after aggressively buying up Treasuries during its repeated bouts of "quantitative easing". Foreigners hold about a third. Here's an updated summary. Google is your friend.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-...l-debt-3306124 Originally Posted by lustylad

So as i suspected all along, the 1913 Fed Reserve Act was nothing more than a credit card for the Fed Gov to spend what it wanted, for decades, and run a "credit card" bar tab of ... TRILLIONS?

so why should we pay that? as i once said in this forum, the so-called transfer of "Monetary debt" we pay out is a drop in the bucket of what we owe, meaning that any bitch fuck nation who wants to collect their debt IN FULL will get a C 130 full of freshly minted Fed Reserve notes. backed solely by America's continued prosperity. or not. so pay them. bahgahaa

accountants write off this kind of big debt every year. it's just a number on one side of a balance sheet.

the real question is ... why fiat currency so long after the Great Depression and why no Gold/Silver standard to back our money? and other assets like Platinum and rare precious metals? and Oil/diamonds/gems etc?

what is the rationale .. beyond the obvious "open credit" aspect, does this not serve?

or rather .... whom does it serve?

who really owns the Fed Reserve? Who?

That's not what I said. I said that the current account equals the change in national savings minus the change in national investment. This is not a postulate, it's a fact, like 1+1=2 is a fact. If the U.S. government, individuals and businesses collectively saved more than they invested, then there would be no current account or trade deficit... Originally Posted by Tiny

Hey Tiny, I know what you said and I have 2 problems with it. First, it's too academic. You need to explain the problem in down-to-earth, practical terms so laymen and non-economists get it. Second, your description makes the trade/current account deficit sound like an act of god or something that just happens. Which side of the equation has the endogenous/exogenous variable? There are lots of ways to shrink the trade deficit short of telling Americans to save more and spend less.

japan is a good example of unfair trade. they send cars & electronics over under free trade but probibit U.S. rice & beef entering their market and those are marked up at high tarriff rates..
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Just like Dairy products from the US, get tarrified 50% or more up in Canada.. AND THAT's been going on for a LONG TIME.. So imo it's about time we started tarrifing them BACK.

Just like Dairy products from the US, get tarrified 50% or more up in Canada.. AND THAT's been going on for a LONG TIME.. So imo it's about time we started tarrifing them BACK. Originally Posted by garhkal

speaking of Canada .. and others ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...13e_story.html


http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3...d-unfair-trade


https://www.forbes.com/sites/charles.../#71fc4aee14d7


i like the above the best ...

"Is Canada Really Our Worst Trade Enemy?"


ARE THEY?

BAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAa

Hey Tiny, I know what you said and I have 2 problems with it. First, it's too academic. You need to explain the problem in down-to-earth, practical terms so laymen and non-economists get it. Second, your description makes the trade/current account deficit sound like an act of god or something that just happens. Which side of the equation has the endogenous/exogenous variable? There are lots of ways to shrink the trade deficit short of telling Americans to save more and spend less. Originally Posted by lustylad

Good point LustyLad. OK, again, our trade deficit in goods and services equals national savings less national investment.

You can separate out savings and investment into three parts: individuals, businesses and the government

Let's take individuals to start. Let's say an American spends every dollar he makes, on restaurant food, a big house, a BMW, etc. In fact maybe he consumes more than he produces. Maybe he doesn't produce anything. Now you've got a German. The Kraut saves a large percentage of what he makes. He produces more than he consumes. So you have excess production in Germany, that's exported, because people produce more than they consume. They put the excess into savings. What I'm describing here shows up in the personal savings rate. In Germany, it's 10%. People sock away 10% of their disposable income. In the USA the personal savings rate is 3%.

Now government. As you noted above, the federal government spends a lot more than it takes in. It issues treasury securities (government debt, like bonds, T-bills, etc) to fund the shortfall. A substantial part of government debt is held by foreigners, 42% of U.S. treasuries in fact. How do foreigners end up with the dollars to buy our government debt? Largely by selling us more than we sell them. That is, government overspending shows up in the trade deficit and vice versa.

Corporations - I don't even know the numbers. Right now I'm guessing they save more than they invest, because their cash balances are increasing.

Anyway, the big sinner right now is government, it's what's running down national savings. Individuals are kind of a wash, and I think the corporations are increasing savings.

I don't think you're entirely right in the last part of what you say. I don't believe the trade deficit will turn positive unless the savings rate increases. You may be right about being able to do it without decreasing personal spending though. If we increase productivity, increase the labor force participation rate (knock the able bodied off social security disability for example), and reduce crazy government spending, then I bet it would happen without decreasing personal spending.

Waco, I think I understand what you're getting at - will be back on that later, have to go back to work, producing, to do my part in reducing the American trade deficit.

japan is a good example of unfair trade. they...probibit U.S. rice & beef entering their market and those are marked up at high tarriff rates..


that is one form of unfair trade.


another one is one where a product is subsidized by the govt that is cheap enough to sell in foreign markets in an effort to dominate that market. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Waco, Answering your question, by Dilbert's first definition, no, I'm not OK with unfair trade, where Japan effectively prohibits rice and beef imports.

With respect to his second definition, it would depend on the product. If it's advanced computer chips, I'm not OK with it. If it's something that involves thousands of women doing dull, repetitive, low skilled assembly line work to put some electronic gadget together, then I'm fine with a foreign government subsidizing that and us buying it at a low price. I'd rather Americans do higher skilled, higher paid work and leave the crap work to others. I'd rather pay less for what I buy.

Trump however is a dumb shit who doesn't make a distinction. Right now he's proposing to take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and subsidize farmers because he's ass fucking them with his trade war and figures that might cause him to lose the next election. Based on what you say about the Federal Reserve above, you appear to be a Ron Paul Republican. But he's got you, and 75% of other Republicans, thinking like Democrats on trade. He's a pied piper. He used to be a Democrat. If the Republicans lose the mid terms in both houses, look for him to cozy up with Schumer and Pelosi. I don't think you'll go all the way with him, but if you do it'll be interesting seeing you and Yssup in bed together. Figuratively speaking.