Replies

Sorry to cherry pick a comment to respond to, but it summarizes effectively why we do not agree:

"Trade is what makes us wealthy. That includes trade in energy."

Actually, we were once wealthy.

We are now broke. In debt, in fact. Trillions of dollars in debt.

Because of unbalanced trade.

If you have a nice, paid for home you can be considered wealthy.

If you take out a second on that nice paid for home, and spend it on trinkets, you are no longer wealthy.

You are now broke.

America cannot sustain indefinately losing our manufacturing capability and spending more than we have.

We must stop.

An immediate improvement, would be to re-invigorate the US auto industry, by aggressively producing the most efficient, most competetive and most innovative new auto technology.

And stop sending our money to terrorist sponsoring regimes.

You seem to believe otherwise.

It's a FreeCountry.

Sorry to cherry pick a comment to respond to, but it summarizes effectively why we do not agree:

"Trade is what makes us wealthy. That includes trade in energy."

No...the reason we do not agree is because you have no knowledge of energy production or consumption, and as I now see from you latest post, no knowledge of economics.

Actually, we were once wealthy.

We are now broke. In debt, in fact. Trillions of dollars in debt.

Are you unable to distinguish assets from debt? Net worth = Assets - Debt. Having trillions of dollars in debt means nothing without an analysis of the asset side of the equation. Fortunately we have far more assets than debt in the United States, and household net worth is at an all time high. Therefore, "we" are not broke, although you may be. And certainly we all will be if your cockamamie notions on trade were ever adopted.

Because of unbalanced trade.

As an exercise, figure out the trade balance for Manhattan, and then tell me whether you think Manhattan is wealthy or not.

If you have a nice, paid for home you can be considered wealthy.

This is a curious notion of "wealth." Everybody else in the world would consider wealth to be assets less debt. Home ownership is a significant part of the wealth of some people, but not all. Note that thanks to the tax deduction on mortgage interest, it makes economic sense for most wealthy people to have debt on their home first, since this is their lowest cost of capital.

If you take out a second on that nice paid for home, and spend it on trinkets, you are no longer wealthy.

You are now broke.

America cannot sustain indefinately losing our manufacturing capability and spending more than we have.

Your comment about 2nd mortgages is irrelevant to the broader discussion. Most people don't have 2nd mortgages initiated to buy trinkets. And your definition of "broke" is still incorrect.

America is not losing manufacturing capacity. In fact, manufacturing as a percentage of GDP is higher than it has been in 30 years. Employment in manufacturing is falling, which is a good thing. At one time 90% of the population was involved in farming. Now that less than 10% is, that labor is freed up to be more productive elsewhere in the economy. You shouldn't shed a tear that 80% of the people who would have been farming in 1776 are now not farmers. And likewise you need not lose sleep as manufacturing produces more product with fewer employees.

We must stop.

Nope...we are doing great just the way we are.

An immediate improvement, would be to re-invigorate the US auto industry, by aggressively producing the most efficient, most competetive and most innovative new auto technology.

Yes, well that would be an improvement. But with the idiots running the big 3 and their legacy labor contracts we both know that's not going to happen. If Carl Icahn can't force management to change, then all 3 are likely to go Chapter 11 to shed their legacy costs (which is a good thing). And in reality, the auto manufacturers are such a small part of the GDP of the United States that they could disappear without economic significant, excepting some regional effects in poorly run and heavily unionized cities like Detroit.

And stop sending our money to terrorist sponsoring regimes.

How much money and to which regimes are we "sending" money?

You seem to believe otherwise.

It's a FreeCountry.

It would be materially less free with the authoritarian and anti-free proposals that you favor. We are wealthy because we trade. If you want to discuss trade embargoes against specific nations, feel free to state specifically which countries you want to embargo and why. Otherwise, you need to spend a lot more time studying economics and learning how and why trade increases wealth for both parties.

jas3

p.s. I'm glad to see you have abandoned your weird argument that the US should switch to solar power.