U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:20 AM
 
3,853 posts, read 12,062,701 times
Reputation: 2522

Advertisements

Essentially, energy products and anything that has a manufacturing component in it. Car parts, obviously requires lots of assembly line work. Other goods is probably wal-mart type consumer products. They say for every 1$ billion in imports that equals 20,000 US jobs. So 800 billion deficit is 16,000,000 US jobs. According to wikipedia our total labor force is 150 million, about half the population. The rest are either elderly (13%), under 18 (25%), or disabled (12%). According to the BLS, the total employment is 134,000,000. If we add the 16 million to the 134 million we get 150 million, or full employment. If obama wants to change things, he needs to focus on closing the trade deficit. Either we need to import less of the below products or export more of something else to balance those imports out.

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2009, 06:06 AM
 
Location: London
22 posts, read 64,600 times
Reputation: 28
It would lend more credibility to your post if you put a source for your statistics
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 54,365,915 times
Reputation: 24736
We need to reestablish a balanced trade policy for manufactured goods and develop our domestic energy sources to reduce energy imports. Countervailing tariffs based on differences in labor and environmental costs will provide the former and a floor under domestic energy prices will let us finance the latter.

Free Trade is a snare created by the international financiers to trap us into continuously increasing trade deficits. Remember these traders get a piece of this action so from their point of view the bigger the deficits the better no matter how much it damages out economy and country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 09:24 AM
 
5,413 posts, read 10,362,914 times
Reputation: 4503
Interesting graph, Killer. Thanks.

Makes a pretty good argument that we have to kill the cars and oil before they kill US.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Socialist Republik of Amerika
6,212 posts, read 12,024,895 times
Reputation: 1109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajeleonard View Post
It would lend more credibility to your post if you put a source for your statistics
They did BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Yes
2,660 posts, read 6,277,108 times
Reputation: 899
I'm sure it can't be that simple of a situation lol, but it's an argument that definitely makes good sense on on the surface.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 04:50 PM
 
3,853 posts, read 12,062,701 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscottscotto View Post
I'm sure it can't be that simple of a situation lol, but it's an argument that definitely makes good sense on on the surface.
I am sure there are a lot of other dynamics that go into it. Maybe perhaps the idea that we spend 700$ billion per annum on a military budget? All that money could be going to rebuilding this nation. Renewable energy and domestic fuels is huge start.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Socialist Republik of Amerika
6,212 posts, read 12,024,895 times
Reputation: 1109
Quote:
Originally Posted by killer2021 View Post
I am sure there are a lot of other dynamics that go into it. Maybe perhaps the idea that we spend 700$ billion per annum on a military budget? All that money could be going to rebuilding this nation. Renewable energy and domestic fuels is huge start.
Are you saying to take away the military budget?
Cuz that would put hundreds of thousands out of work.

Oh and we'd be taken over by some other country, no one is going to just let a nation with these resources run itself without an army.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 08:53 PM
 
Location: down south
514 posts, read 1,481,583 times
Reputation: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom View Post
Are you saying to take away the military budget?
Cuz that would put hundreds of thousands out of work.

Oh and we'd be taken over by some other country, no one is going to just let a nation with these resources run itself without an army.
military spending can only be productive if there were profitable war to fight and win. Investing in a military that doesn't fight and win profitable wars, the investment will over the long run adversely affect the economy. That's how Soviet Union bankrupted itself. Wars like Iraqi war is not profitable because it disrupted the balance of power in one of the most important geographic regions in the world and created a new state at best wary of US intention and potentially hostile toward US interests, as the reigning superpower, US isn't a spoiler like Iran or North Korea who benefit from disruption of current status quo. As a result, the money spent on the military and the unprofitable will suck resources from other sector of the economy without producing an environment beneficial to the other sector of the economy. Also because the US military is already more than enough to fight and win the kind of war she's likely to engage in when the defense spending was around $300 billions, increasing defense spending to $700 billions or more will actually reduce profit margin. In another word, the increase in defense spending over the past 8 years is bad investment because money was spent fighting a unprofitable war, investing in weapon system that has very little likelihood of being used in a productive fashion in actual combat and the fact that increase in defense spending is more of a investment in an institution that has already got the capability to do its job. Military spending should be determined by overall strategic need of the state, not by what generals think they need. Like health insurance, defense spending is something we must have for contingencies, but if you spent too high a portion of your income in health insurance, it will cut into other spending that's necessary to maintain our standard of living. It's a balance and I believe the current status of defense spending, even the portion that has nothing to do with Iraqi war, tilts too much toward preparing for the "insurance" part of the equation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Socialist Republik of Amerika
6,212 posts, read 12,024,895 times
Reputation: 1109
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatfastnoodle View Post
military spending can only be productive if there were profitable war to fight and win. Investing in a military that doesn't fight and win profitable wars, the investment will over the long run adversely affect the economy.
Well seeing as our monetary system is based on growth through debt, i respectfully disagree.
To the victor goes the spoils was pretty much used up in WWII. Now that we are a global community, not much spoils stays in the USA. It is offshore and spread about the globe in the form of trade deficits.

Quote:
That's how Soviet Union bankrupted itself.
The Soviets didn't have the world bank and IMF to back them up, ie Chinese and Saudi backed treasury notes, or trade deficits.

Quote:
Wars like Iraqi war is not profitable because it disrupted the balance of power in one of the most important geographic regions in the world and created a new state at best wary of US intention and potentially hostile toward US interests, as the reigning superpower, US isn't a spoiler like Iran or North Korea who benefit from disruption of current status quo.
Tell that to the IMF, World Bank, Halliburton, Lockhead, oh and Aquafina.
Govt's don't exist to make a profit, they exist to say who gets the profit.

Quote:
As a result, the money spent on the military and the unprofitable will suck resources from other sector of the economy without producing an environment beneficial to the other sector of the economy. Also because the US military is already more than enough to fight and win the kind of war she's likely to engage in when the defense spending was around $300 billions, increasing defense spending to $700 billions or more will actually reduce profit margin.
Again the gov't is in the debt game. As to profit, those that benefit got a 130% increase when the spending went from 300 to $700 billion.

Quote:
In another word, the increase in defense spending over the past 8 years is bad investment because money was spent fighting a unprofitable war, investing in weapon system that has very little likelihood of being used in a productive fashion in actual combat and the fact that increase in defense spending is more of a investment in an institution that has already got the capability to do its job. Military spending should be determined by overall strategic need of the state, not by what generals think they need. Like health insurance, defense spending is something we must have for contingencies, but if you spent too high a portion of your income in health insurance, it will cut into other spending that's necessary to maintain our standard of living. It's a balance and I believe the current status of defense spending, even the portion that has nothing to do with Iraqi war, tilts too much toward preparing for the "insurance" part of the equation.
Only for the newborn Americans that are seen as Chattle and have their birth certificates held by the treasury dept.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top