Steve Bannon wants Trump to hike taxes on the rich he wants a 4 in front of it.
- Thread starter bullitpdq68
- Start date
Most of the posters on this site are highly educated farmers.
Duck and NM are great examples of the liberal mind at work.
Oh please. Let's exchange a gazillion dollars of wealth, and in return, we get migrant workers. Just a terrible post. I'm dumber having read this.
Yes, we all assumed time stopped in 1994. Yes, it took a while to lose our manufacturing jobs. Blah, blah blah.
We decided to send $4 trillion to China in trade deficits since 2000: That's worked out really well.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
That's where our money that was supposed to be spent investing in USA infrastructure gone. We sent it to China to pay for THEIR building infrastructure in China.
China ran a $347 billion trade surplus with the USA last year:
Germany ran a $65 billion surplus with the USA:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4280.html
Maybe China and Germany should learn how to steal from each other instead of stealing from us
Last edited:
Did I miss the Pro-choice issue that leftist covet? Oh yes, babies yet to be born are not vulnerable. Go figure Bernie.
Large corporation Farmers, the little mom and pop 80 acre farms are being driven out!! Dem supported Corporations come in buy all the land and run the little guy out.
Running a trade deficit is not equally exchanging wealth both ways.
Oh Abortion....But if you truly believe in the bible...the future is already written.
Nothing ever catches God by surprise; He knows everything that’s going to happen to us. As the Psalmist wrote, “His understanding has no limit” (Psalm 147:5).
BTW...
The European Union ran a $146.8 billion trade deficit with the USA last year:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html
The European Union ran a $146.8 billion trade deficit with the USA last year:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html
Dem supported corporations? That's a stretch. Federal farm policy is a bipartisan affair driven by the heavy power historically held by rural legislators.
Realistically, given the value of economies of scale, the improvements in technology, and the complexity of the international market for food commodities, it was probably inevitable that food production would move towards larger producers. The amount of labor it takes to produce a bushel of food has declined in a staggering way over the last 100 years in the US.
Last edited:
Yes, it is. What do you think a trade deficit represents? It represents a trade of fiat currency dollars for goods and services of equivalent value
That's not really the way to evaluate the pros and cons of a trade deficit.
The signs of U.S. decay are abundant:
1. Merchandise trade deficits of $750 billion each and every year.
2. Increasing national debt of $500 billion + every year.
3. Labor force participation percent peaked in 1999.
4. Median incomes stagnant. Only the top 20% are prospering from inflation of financial and real estate assets.
5. Economy growing at best at 2%.
6. Healthcare expenses growing at 5.8%, nearly 3x the economy.
7. More people living to be 90, fewer people being born.
8. Two states, Illinois and Maine, are in emergency session this weekend to avoid financial crises. More states will go under if the economy cools.
9. The industrial sector of our economy has been largely removed from the USA. The economy has narrowed its base.
For me, it is not comforting to extrapolate these trends forward for another 20 years. The USA government could become defunct in a single day if it can't service the debt it owes to China.
I don't think anybody will care about the looming collapse until it happens.
1. Merchandise trade deficits of $750 billion each and every year.
2. Increasing national debt of $500 billion + every year.
3. Labor force participation percent peaked in 1999.
4. Median incomes stagnant. Only the top 20% are prospering from inflation of financial and real estate assets.
5. Economy growing at best at 2%.
6. Healthcare expenses growing at 5.8%, nearly 3x the economy.
7. More people living to be 90, fewer people being born.
8. Two states, Illinois and Maine, are in emergency session this weekend to avoid financial crises. More states will go under if the economy cools.
9. The industrial sector of our economy has been largely removed from the USA. The economy has narrowed its base.
For me, it is not comforting to extrapolate these trends forward for another 20 years. The USA government could become defunct in a single day if it can't service the debt it owes to China.
I don't think anybody will care about the looming collapse until it happens.
I didn't say equally, although I'd argue it's really hard for the wealthiest country by far on earth to run a trade surplus, NAFTA or not.
At the least, it would be extremely hard to do so while using your currency as the de facto global reserve currency, since the deficit is how we keep enough dollars out there.
Neutron and Cowherd, I guess the only way to truly understand what the affects of Nafta were on the working man was to actually have been affected by it in someway or known somebody who was. It is obvious you two were not, and do not personally know anybody who was, so you are unable to understand it, thus to continue down this path with you two would be like trying to argue with a blind man on what color the sky was....
This proves the old saying... Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. So until Nafta or some other Corporate Dem sponsored bill personally affects you two in some way you will blindly follow the Corp Dems leadership and be their sheep. But I want to make it clear... I am in no way endorsing the Pubs either, I just don't blindly follow the leaders of either party as I refuse to be a sheep. I just wish we truly had somebody that represented and truly cared about the republic and it's people.
This proves the old saying... Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. So until Nafta or some other Corporate Dem sponsored bill personally affects you two in some way you will blindly follow the Corp Dems leadership and be their sheep. But I want to make it clear... I am in no way endorsing the Pubs either, I just don't blindly follow the leaders of either party as I refuse to be a sheep. I just wish we truly had somebody that represented and truly cared about the republic and it's people.
Mitt Romney: "I want to keep America exceptional by selling it to China".Trump isn't.
But it was a Dem President who signed it into law....he could have vetoed it which I would expected from a Dem, I would expect nothing less from the Pubs to be for it, it was the Dem who was supposed to be for the working man!! ...But now we have Corp Dems and Pubs, which pretty much are the same.
Last edited:
I take it you don't understand how bad it is! What has been the AVERAGE GDP growth over the last 40 yrs?
It should be a law that all politicians should have to forfeit their pay if we don't get 3% growth.
Trump is only a republican because he could have never been the nominee as a dem. He doesn't care one way or another about most issues important to either party.
We don't have the population growth to sustain more than that, although again, 2% compounding is a powerful thing. $19k per person of GDP growth in one generation. That's a lot of money.
This is meaningless without considering the change in working age population by year.
Our population was exploding in the 1950s and 1960s, of course growth was a lot higher.
You really need to look at per capita figures for a true comparison. Things like changes in real per capita wages, changes in GDP per person, and changes in worker productivity.
There's also the matter that personal income is more important than GDP to the average person.
I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but a lot of people blame NAFTA for things that aren't directly related to NAFTA, and they ignore the benefits that NAFTA had for others.
Policymakers have to consider all of that.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA25TTUSM647N
I can't imagine why nominal GDP growth used to be higher...
You also are totally ignoring the impact on nominal GDP of putting half of your country to work that previously stayd home. The increase in labor force participation by women cannot be repeated again. It was a one time shot. We went from about 35% participation to about 75% participation among core working age women from 1950-2000. That was "found money" from a GDP standpoint that you can never recreate.
I can't imagine why nominal GDP growth used to be higher...
You also are totally ignoring the impact on nominal GDP of putting half of your country to work that previously stayd home. The increase in labor force participation by women cannot be repeated again. It was a one time shot. We went from about 35% participation to about 75% participation among core working age women from 1950-2000. That was "found money" from a GDP standpoint that you can never recreate.
What US policy makers should consider is that the working age population is basically not growing, and 2% growth in real GDP accruing via growth in productivity creates the conditions needed for the average person to see rises in their standards of living over time (which is what really matters to the average person)
Absolutely. We should enact policy that makes sure that prosperity is widely shared.
Hence I said the last forty years! The 50s and 60s were before that.
If the GDP grows at a 3-4% rate under Trump will he be a miracle worker then? Would that be bad since Obama couldn't do 2% with nowhere to go but up?
It would be impressive if GDP grew at 3% for a 4 year Presidential term in the current world, yes.
The gains from women joining the economy were mostly accrued in the 1970s and 1980s, and the working age population continued to rise throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. 1990s did have a productivity boom as well. That's the sort of thing we would have to recreate.
miller these goofballs weren't alive 40 years ago.
The ones that are were former hippie lossers from the Woodstock era.
Similar threads
