Skip to comments.
In Defense of "Trade Deficits"
Washington Times via Capitalism Magazine ^
| March 22, 2003
| Daniel J. Mitchell
Posted on 07/30/2003 8:21:31 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 last
To: ETERNAL WARMING
Disputing terminology, and citing the obvious, is no way to make an argument. What do you expect? Should the term "free trade" be changed to "almost free trade?" In your view, should "almost free traders" denounce the efforts of industry-groups to lobby Congress?
Where are you going with this?
41
posted on
07/31/2003 11:23:32 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: RLK
Just basing on current trends and expectations derived from past experiences.
42
posted on
07/31/2003 1:26:29 PM PDT
by
edsheppa
To: lelio
The buying of goods from foreign nations and the permanent transfer of funds of payment to those nations under continuing deficit conditions does not result in the transferred funds returning to me through my business.Please explain to me how these transfers are "permanent"? Are the Chinese and Japanese burning the dollars then get in trade (God, I hope so!!!)? Are they stuffing it under a bed? What are they doing that is PERMANENTLY reducing the money supply (and why would that be bad, anyway)?
43
posted on
07/31/2003 1:34:10 PM PDT
by
Charles H. (The_r0nin)
(If [economic] ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man on the planet...)
To: RLK
Black is white. Up is down. It all makes sense to me.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson