Not to say I necessarily take numbers in government reports at face value, but this rebuttal is lame. On one side we've got a claim, presumably put forth by some economist working for the government (not "the government"), that inflation was 0.8%. Is that correct? I have no idea. I do know, however, that saying "my guess is" and then pulling a number out of the clear blue sky, is not a counterargument.
Further, part of the gains result from tourists using their appreciated foreign currencies to buy products cheaper here than they can in the own countries.
Which....what...."doesn't count"?
Corporate earnings, particularly those of multi-nationals, are padded as their foreign currency denominated earnings translate into more dollars when those earnings are repatriated.
That's right, I suppose. If you owed a company in yen rather than dollars you are sad, and the company is happy, because they have earned more. So what? I suppose this is another thing I am supposed to think "doesn't count"?
However, such gains are illusions, as companies merely earn more dollars of diminished value for the goods they sell.
No, the gains (from being paid in an appreciating foreign currency) are real. The sale of goods domestically, in dollars, is a separate issue. But let us note that this guy hasn't made the argument he's trying to here, either. True, maybe the company is getting more dollars for the goods they sell, but those dollars are worth so much less that overall the company has lost out.
But that's not the only possibility. Maybe while the dollar is down the company is selling more at a pace that outweighs that. Or maybe the two effects actually balance. Again, an actual argument is required to settle the issue, not merely waving one's hands and saying "my guess is 10%".
The actual volume of exports does not necessarily improve much, as evidenced by weak industrial production and manufacturing employment.
What does "actual volume of exports" have to do with anything in the first place? Thought we were talking about GDP, not, er, GDV.
When those additional debased dollars are paid out as dividends, they confer no real increase in global purchasing power to shareholders.
Again, an argument is needed for this. Maybe dividends go up at the same time in a way that balances or outweighs the inflation. Anyway, there's more to GDP than dividends so I'm not sure what he's trying to prove exactly.
To arrive at this conclusion, the forum has obliterated the obvious under a mountain of theory.
Yes, another instance where some stupidhead insisted on using formulas and data ("a mountain of theory") instead of just saying "my guess is" because that's "the obvious".
[...]Completely ignored however are the measurable results of competitiveness, notably a trade surplus and a strong currency. [...] Based on the empirical evidence of a gargantuan trade deficit, staggering global indebtedness, and a declining currency, the United States is clearly not the most competitive economy in the world.
I'll give him half a point here, only because I don't know what the heck "competitive" is supposed to mean in the context of an "economy". Maybe the U.S. is, or is not, the "most competitive economy" - I don't know, and I don't care.
But the real question is who is this guy, and why are his arguments so weak?
Peter Schiff is a noted Bear, well known as 'Dr. Doom'. He was trained by his father, Irwin Schiff, who wrote books explaining why you don't have to pay your income tax. As a result he is now in a Federal Pen!