Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What manufacturing are left in the US? Surely not textiles, tech or steel.
So Mexico dumping farm produce in the US is helping US farmers...how?
Canada is our largest buyer of our agriculture. You know they people we know are picking a fight with....
We support Mexico (in part) with a deficit in order to help them financially to increase their ability to maintain order. We do not want a completely out of control country on our border. You can complain about them all you want, but it could be worse.
A quick google showed an estimated 12.3 Million jobs in US manufacturing.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
All I can tell you is that if you have the reserve currency , you will always have one.
In addition to this, if the US does not run trade deficits then the rest of the world end up with a liquidity problem which tends to work hand in hand because when the US stops importing the rest of the world ends up with gluts.
Pretty easy to see right after the end of the gold window, the US has always since run trade deficits.
Can you provide a counter argument to prove the poster's wrong?
No he/she cannot, because it’s not debatable anymore than sunshine is debatable. It’s not an opinion. It’s a hard fact.
But this explains how we’ve allowed ourselves to become total debt slaves .... the first step was to convince the sheep that everything is “income”, and that compensation for our labor was income and therefore taxable. That’s not how it was looked upon by the Constitution, as it was originally defined.
Income by nature and legal definition is “profit” gained through some form of commerce. There is no “profit” involved in labor ... it’s an equal exchange ... an hour of my time in exchange for something of equal value to me. It could be $25, or it could be a haircut. Say I repair the barber’s fence ... in exchange, he gives me a haircut and a shave in return. Did anyone make a “profit”? Hell no. Just an exchange. How can you tax a shave? Say I fix the farmer’s tractor. He in turn gives me a dozen tomatoes as compensation. Am I to send 3 tomatoes to the government? That makes no sense.
We can use a hypothetical example ... I have my own country, and I call it Republic of GNT. Total population of five. A farmer, a cook, a carpenter, a seamstress and a handyman. Each of us has $100. Our country has a total net worth of $500. Each week, we do our respective jobs for $25 that we receive from the other 4 citizens, and in turn we pay out $25 to each of those other 4 persons. So we pay out $100 each week, and collect $100. No one has made a profit, nor made any gain. We start with $100 and end with $100. The country hasn’t made any gains either, because we still have only the $500 we started with. Then one day a liberal comes along and claims we need to tax these transactions at 5%. So, each week, each of the 5 people must pay the taxman $5, leaving us with $95 left from the $100. The taxman collects $25 each week. Now we no longer have $100 to pay out, since we only have $95 starting the very first week. And each week thereafter, we loose another 5%. We have two choices ...in just 20 weeks, we will all be broke, or we will have to borrow the money to keep going. In another 20 weeks, we will be $100 each in debt, in 20 more weeks, $200 in debt, and so forth. This is the only thing that can happen when you call transfers income. There was never any income, i.e., profit or gain ... only transfers of existing wealth. The ONLY way to generate income would be for those 5 citizens of the Repblic of GNT to sell their services to a foreign land .... should each of them sell their services to one other counrtry, they’d make $25 each week .... collectively generating a total income of $225 for the Republic of GNT. After the first week, the net worth of the country would increase from $500 to $725, for a net profit of $225. And, so long as these 5 citizens sold more of their services to those foreign lands that they paid out to those foreign lands, the country would still generate gains. BUT, if each of those 5 sold $25 in services, but purchased $35 in foreign made things, (trade deficit) the country would eventually become bankrupt.
All of the other “complexities” regarding economic theory are in large measure, distractions, not unlike a magician who waves his left hand in the air, so you don’t notice what the right hand is actually doing.
No he/she cannot, because it’s not debatable anymore than sunshine is debatable. It’s not an opinion. It’s a hard fact.
But this explains how we’ve allowed ourselves to become total debt slaves .... the first step was to convince the sheep that everything is “income”, and that compensation for our labor was income and therefore taxable. That’s not how it was looked upon by the Constitution, as it was originally defined.
Income by nature and legal definition is “profit” gained through some form of commerce. There is no “profit” involved in labor ... it’s an equal exchange ... an hour of my time in exchange for something of equal value to me. It could be $25, or it could be a haircut. Say I repair the barber’s fence ... in exchange, he gives me a haircut and a shave in return. Did anyone make a “profit”? Hell no. Just an exchange. How can you tax a shave? Say I fix the farmer’s tractor. He in turn gives me a dozen tomatoes as compensation. Am I to send 3 tomatoes to the government? That makes no sense.
We can use a hypothetical example ... I have my own country, and I call it Republic of GNT. Total population of five. A farmer, a cook, a carpenter, a seamstress and a handyman. Each of us has $100. Our country has a total net worth of $500. Each week, we do our respective jobs for $25 that we receive from the other 4 citizens, and in turn we pay out $25 to each of those other 4 persons. So we pay out $100 each week, and collect $100. No one has made a profit, nor made any gain. We start with $100 and end with $100. The country hasn’t made any gains either, because we still have only the $500 we started with. Then one day a liberal comes along and claims we need to tax these transactions at 5%. So, each week, each of the 5 people must pay the taxman $5, leaving us with $95 left from the $100. The taxman collects $25 each week. Now we no longer have $100 to pay out, since we only have $95 starting the very first week. And each week thereafter, we loose another 5%. We have two choices ...in just 20 weeks, we will all be broke, or we will have to borrow the money to keep going. In another 20 weeks, we will be $100 each in debt, in 20 more weeks, $200 in debt, and so forth. This is the only thing that can happen when you call transfers income. There was never any income, i.e., profit or gain ... only transfers of existing wealth. The ONLY way to generate income would be for those 5 citizens of the Repblic of GNT to sell their services to a foreign land .... should each of them sell their services to one other counrtry, they’d make $25 each week .... collectively generating a total income of $225 for the Republic of GNT. After the first week, the net worth of the country would increase from $500 to $725, for a net profit of $225. And, so long as these 5 citizens sold more of their services to those foreign lands that they paid out to those foreign lands, the country would still generate gains. BUT, if each of those 5 sold $25 in services, but purchased $35 in foreign made things, (trade deficit) the country would eventually become bankrupt.
All of the other “complexities” regarding economic theory are in large measure, distractions, not unlike a magician who waves his left hand in the air, so you don’t notice what the right hand is actually doing.
It's a hard fact you don't understand economics.
You are under the illusion that economics is zero sum.
No he/she cannot, because it’s not debatable anymore than sunshine is debatable. It’s not an opinion. It’s a hard fact.
But this explains how we’ve allowed ourselves to become total debt slaves .... the first step was to convince the sheep that everything is “income”, and that compensation for our labor was income and therefore taxable. That’s not how it was looked upon by the Constitution, as it was originally defined.
Income by nature and legal definition is “profit” gained through some form of commerce. There is no “profit” involved in labor ... it’s an equal exchange ... an hour of my time in exchange for something of equal value to me. It could be $25, or it could be a haircut. Say I repair the barber’s fence ... in exchange, he gives me a haircut and a shave in return. Did anyone make a “profit”? Hell no. Just an exchange. How can you tax a shave? Say I fix the farmer’s tractor. He in turn gives me a dozen tomatoes as compensation. Am I to send 3 tomatoes to the government? That makes no sense.
We can use a hypothetical example ... I have my own country, and I call it Republic of GNT. Total population of five. A farmer, a cook, a carpenter, a seamstress and a handyman. Each of us has $100. Our country has a total net worth of $500. Each week, we do our respective jobs for $25 that we receive from the other 4 citizens, and in turn we pay out $25 to each of those other 4 persons. So we pay out $100 each week, and collect $100. No one has made a profit, nor made any gain. We start with $100 and end with $100. The country hasn’t made any gains either, because we still have only the $500 we started with. Then one day a liberal comes along and claims we need to tax these transactions at 5%. So, each week, each of the 5 people must pay the taxman $5, leaving us with $95 left from the $100. The taxman collects $25 each week. Now we no longer have $100 to pay out, since we only have $95 starting the very first week. And each week thereafter, we loose another 5%. We have two choices ...in just 20 weeks, we will all be broke, or we will have to borrow the money to keep going. In another 20 weeks, we will be $100 each in debt, in 20 more weeks, $200 in debt, and so forth. This is the only thing that can happen when you call transfers income. There was never any income, i.e., profit or gain ... only transfers of existing wealth. The ONLY way to generate income would be for those 5 citizens of the Repblic of GNT to sell their services to a foreign land .... should each of them sell their services to one other counrtry, they’d make $25 each week .... collectively generating a total income of $225 for the Republic of GNT. After the first week, the net worth of the country would increase from $500 to $725, for a net profit of $225. And, so long as these 5 citizens sold more of their services to those foreign lands that they paid out to those foreign lands, the country would still generate gains. BUT, if each of those 5 sold $25 in services, but purchased $35 in foreign made things, (trade deficit) the country would eventually become bankrupt.
All of the other “complexities” regarding economic theory are in large measure, distractions, not unlike a magician who waves his left hand in the air, so you don’t notice what the right hand is actually doing.
All that to pretty much say nothing? I can make up parables and fairy tales too.
If Trump and the US win this trade battle, the Leftists lose. So they want Trump and the US to lose. Why aren't they moving to Canada like they promised if they're so unhappy?
are you sure the Leftists are the one advocating for free trade? you maybe barking at the wrong tree
follow the money. who are the importers of cheap goods? who are the manufacturers of cheap goods? the wholesalers? the retailers ? and don't forget the CONSUMERS who really want the cheapest goods available. that's why Amazon and Walmart are big.
Already done .Why does he think we are still on the Bretton Woods system?
It would have been a fine explanation of world trade before 1971.
Now the US exports its currency as if it were gold.
You’ve done nothing here but attempt to justify the heist with a lot of nonsensical claptrap.
just an FYI ... in 1971, the US National debt was 398 Billion, compared to today’s 21+ Trillion. 1971 also marked the first year of a trade deficit, from the previous decade of trade surpluses. We’ve only had one year of trade surpluses (1975) since then. 47 years of trade deficits, and the increasing national debt are not coincidental. When you spend more than you make ... you borrow to make up the difference. That’s just reality.
The stage was set in 1913 with the Federal Reaerve Act, and the 16th Amendment of the same year. Then the confiscation of gold in 1933, and the official ending of backed currency in 71. Thats when the real looting of our economy and wealth kicked in. That’s history.
And, no, we do not export currency as if it were gold .... we made an agreement with the Arabs to only accept US currency for oil, and in exchange, we would allow them to exist and rule themselves. So anyone who needed Arab oil, needed US currency to buy it.
All that to pretty much say nothing? I can make up parables and fairy tales too.
Simple math really. I can’t dumb it down any further.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
