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.
Djmilf, among credible economist not opposed to trade deficits, there are few (if any of them) who would not agree, (unless a trade deficit nation enjoys effectively “full employment”), due to their annual trade deficit, the nation had less jobs than otherwise. That's trade defecits detrimental effect upon its nation's economy.
Supposn, the bolded phrase above is what's known as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
You have yet to actually go beyond your claim that you're right and everyone who disagrees with you is not credible.
Supposn, the bolded phrase above is what's known as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
You have yet to actually go beyond your claim that you're right and everyone who disagrees with you is not credible.
Djmilf, you read my post's first line which began as, "Djmilf, among credible economist not opposed to trade deficits, ...", too quickly and misunderstood it?
All persons not opposed to trade deficits, disagree with me. But my comment applies only to credible economists not opposed to trade deficits.
Almost all, (if not entirely all) credible economists are aware of annual trade deficits detrimental effect upon their nation's jobs. But those credible economist, (who I suppose to include the majority of USA's credible economist), considering USA's trade deficit's comparatively small portion of our GDP, and all other factors, do not perceive USA's trade deficits as problematic.
(I wonder what proportion of those credible economists would go on further to contend USA's chronic annual trade deficits are net beneficial to our economy)?
Regarding Lizap's post, (regardless we do or don't agree), our exchange is civil, stays on topic, and I don't think we're all that far apart. Our discussion's certainly superior to those among current members of congress. I prefer we continue. What's your preference?
I've tried to make it one, but simply repeat your same premise without bothering to respond to anything that I've said. You might as well be holding up a grain of said, and repeatedly asking others to confirm that it represents the entire Earth.
If you seek confirmation of your invalid premise, look elsewhere.
I've tried to make it one, but simply repeat your same premise without bothering to respond to anything that I've said. You might as well be holding up a grain of said, and repeatedly asking others to confirm that it represents the entire Earth.
If you seek confirmation of your invalid premise, look elsewhere.
Djmilf, I've made these 2 premises:
(1) Due to an nation's annual trade deficits, (i.e. negative net balances of international trade) their GDP was less than otherwise. All credible economists, (even those not opposed to trade deficits), do not disagree upon this point.
(2) Unless a nation enjoys effectively “full employment”, due to a nation's annual trade deficits, their numbers of jobs and their wages were less than otherwise. Few, if any credible economists, (even those not opposed to trade deficits), do not disagree upon this point.
You contend these 2 premises are “invalid”, or inconsequential as “holding up a grain of said, and repeatedly asking others to confirm that it represents the entire Earth”?
What points haven't I responded to?
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.
