Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Closing the U.S. border with Mexico, which President Trump threatened to do in a Friday tweet if Democrats do not approve funding for his wall, could cost the economy billions of dollars, analysts who have studied the issue say. “It would affect the U.S. economy massively and very negatively,” said Chris Wilson, deputy director at The Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, and the co-author of a study on the border economy. “There’s about a billion dollars of commerce that crosses the border every single day, so every day it’s closed we’re losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars,” he added. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/423150-border-closure-could-cost-billions
If it's the truth, the facts, a direct quote from Twitter, etc., how is it "bashing"? Wouldn't it require a bit of innuendo to be considered bashing? If bashing is just hitting, it would seem to be a straightforward fair game.
@John - who is Barry? If you are referring to President Obama then remember what he had to work with, an obstructionist GOP congress and senate hell bent on opposing anything he wanted done for the good of the country not himself.
@Ted You view comments towards POTUS as "bashing". Do you view or consider that POTUS with his actions, verbal comments and Tweets is "bashing" the U.S. in general; and many citizens in particular??? He surely bashes me and family on almost a daily basis with his lack of civility, period. I remain fully embarrassed for our country; and have expressed this, in particular; with two friendships outside of the U.S. He shows through the above actions that he is a most base form of an uncultured person. There are numerous descriptions for such a person; readily discovered through dictionary words.
@johnN You stated: "Barry did shut down govt while in office too but media does not talk about much since was BARRY WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER."
>>>You need to do your homework, young man; if you choose to provide such a statement here or elsewhere, with unadulterated evidence. Your tone with your statement suggests you voted for Trump; and are not a fan of much of anything outside of the current Republican (or whatever the party has become) objectives. This is fully your choice of freedom in this country. Sadly, mostly from lack of comment from Republicans in my state to contradict anything from POTUS; there have been and will continue to be some decent folks thrown under the bus, who are Republican politicians. Obviously, this is their choice, too.
I will await your discovery of the facts, posted here; regarding your statement.
Um, the analyst cited in the OP is being a bit deceptive. A company can do a billion dollars in revenue but the ultimate question is what are the profits on that revenue. If there are no profits on the revenue then most would consider that revenue a waste of time at best. The US has a trade deficit with Mexico. So if we stopped trading for a period of time, how exactly is the US hurt?
How many businesses set up shop in Mexico to NOT make a profit or greater profits? It's pretty much the other way around. If you want to hurt businesses in the US then stop buying the stuff they export from Mexico back into the US. Of course if you do that then also be prepared to spend multiple times the amounts you currently pay for those products assuming businesses would even try to produce them in the US (which they won't). Ergo, when we don't buy businesses start to suffer.
How many businesses set up shop in Mexico to NOT make a profit or greater profits? It's pretty much the other way around. If you want to hurt businesses in the US then stop buying the stuff they export from Mexico back into the US. Of course if you do that then also be prepared to spend multiple times the amounts you currently pay for those products assuming businesses would even try to produce them in the US (which they won't). Ergo, when we don't buy businesses start to suffer.
The question is not whether any particular business will suffer through any particular course of action. The question is who suffers more when trade stops, Mexico or the US? The answer is easy: the US currently has a trade deficit with Mexico, so Mexico is benefitting through this arrangement while the US is not. So if trading stops until things change, the US is at an advantage.
Next, there are very few Americans who care if a business with plants in Mexico suffers because it has plants in Mexico.
Also, those suffering businesses will have an incentive to tell their Democratic representatives to simply give the President the 5 billion, so they can go back to what they were doing.
>> The question is who suffers more when trade stops, Mexico or the US? The answer is easy: the US currently has a trade deficit with Mexico, so Mexico is benefitting through this arrangement while the US is not. So if trading stops until things change, the US is at an advantage.
Where do you get these notions and 'easy' answers? From the orange loser?
If there are no profits on the revenue then most would consider that revenue a waste of time at best. The US has a trade deficit with Mexico. So if we stopped trading for a period of time, how exactly is the US hurt?
I suppose by that logic we should shut down trade with all these other countries. But I fail to understand how American businesses and consumers would be better off. John Donne said “No man is an island.” The same might be said of nations.
Top trading partners with which the U.S. runs a deficit.
China Canada Mexico Japan Germany South Korea India France Italy Taiwan Ireland Switzerland Vietnam Malaysia Thailand Columbia Israel Spain Indonesia
@davidmoran, coming from CATO that’s impressive. FWIW: after subscribing to their monthly commentaries at Amazon, I quickly cancelled & and received a full refund. “Libertarian” - yes. But much of it’s way out there on the right, IMHO.
>> The question is who suffers more when trade stops, Mexico or the US? The answer is easy: the US currently has a trade deficit with Mexico, so Mexico is benefitting through this arrangement while the US is not. So if trading stops until things change, the US is at an advantage.
Where do you get these notions and 'easy' answers? From the orange loser?
When someone uses phrases like "orange loser" the hope of a reasoned discussion is probably low but I'm feeling adventurous today. First, why would one think that "many economists believe anything" is somehow a discussion ender? Next, Trump's push for tariffs has never been about reducing the amount of trade done. It has explicitly been about shifting pain to the other countries/companies to create incentives to change the trade status quo. Next, the claims concerning bilateral trade deficits would only have teeth if overall there was no trade deficit. Given that such is not true, the only way such discussions would have meaning is if trade deficits didnt matter. But if they didnt matter, then why spend any time talking about bilateral trade deficits.
If there are no profits on the revenue then most would consider that revenue a waste of time at best. The US has a trade deficit with Mexico. So if we stopped trading for a period of time, how exactly is the US hurt?
I suppose by that logic we should shut down trade with all these other countries. But I fail to understand how American businesses and consumers would be better off. John Donne said “No man is an island.” The same might be said of nations.
Top trading partners with which the U.S. runs a deficit.
China Canada Mexico Japan Germany South Korea India France Italy Taiwan Ireland Switzerland Vietnam Malaysia Thailand Columbia Israel Spain Indonesia
Actually there is no argument here for anything. All you seem to be saying is that if trade deficits are bad, then the US is in a bad situation because they are in a net trade deficit. Yes I accept that.
It is true that no man is an island. But it is also true that things that are good in certain circumstances are not necessarily good in all circumstances.
Next, no man is simply a consumer, but instead both a consumer and a producer. If the current trade situation negatively effects one's ability to produce, then it is not self evident that everyone/anyone is in a better situation overall by looking simply at what happens to consumption due to trade.
That HuffPo thing is weak. So is it that you think these matters are zero-sum? The key thing is the value of imports. The very purpose of trade, someone once wrote.
I'm sure that I said this recently but alas and alack, apparently I have to repeat myself.
Anyone calling a trade deficit some sort of economic evil isn't thinking it through.
We have a trade deficit when we spend more on exports from a country than they spend on imports from us. Duh, it means WE HAVE MORE STUFF. We trade specie for goods and services. They get the specie and WE GET THE STUFF.
So please stop talking about the deficit as an issue. What IS an issue with our Chinese trading partners is playing by international rules. That would address intellectual property and trademarked goods and it should make transparent gov't involvement in companies. Now on this latter point about gov'ts subsidizing industries . . . it's all a crock of shit. We've been subsidizing our sugar industry since before the revolution and still are. What we want is transparency of this sort of stuff from all parties.
Now with these issues needing to be addressed, we can deal with it like civilized people and drop all these insane tariffs and really make a deal. Hell, tariffs have NEVER done anyone any good except the owners of the protected industries. US Steel is making out like a raped ape on the backs of all Americans. Bullshit.
Comments
ranchgolf course:https://www.newsweek.com/trump-golf-course-may-committed-immigration-crimes-1274608
Regards,
Ted
https://www.pressherald.com/2017/07/09/alan-caron-america-has-a-crazy-uncle-problem-and-its-leaving-republicans-unable-to-govern/
You view comments towards POTUS as "bashing". Do you view or consider that POTUS with his actions, verbal comments and Tweets is "bashing" the U.S. in general; and many citizens in particular??? He surely bashes me and family on almost a daily basis with his lack of civility, period. I remain fully embarrassed for our country; and have expressed this, in particular; with two friendships outside of the U.S.
He shows through the above actions that he is a most base form of an uncultured person. There are numerous descriptions for such a person; readily discovered through dictionary words.
I post this test again. Go ahead, take the test; as if you were answering from the mindset of POTUS. Tis a short and simple test.
https://psychcentral.com/quizzes/psychopathy-quiz/
@johnN
You stated: "Barry did shut down govt while in office too but media does not talk about much since was BARRY WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER."
>>>You need to do your homework, young man; if you choose to provide such a statement here or elsewhere, with unadulterated evidence. Your tone with your statement suggests you voted for Trump; and are not a fan of much of anything outside of the current Republican (or whatever the party has become) objectives. This is fully your choice of freedom in this country. Sadly, mostly from lack of comment from Republicans in my state to contradict anything from POTUS; there have been and will continue to be some decent folks thrown under the bus, who are Republican politicians. Obviously, this is their choice, too.
I will await your discovery of the facts, posted here; regarding your statement.
Sincerely,
Catch
check your assertion at gallup
Next, there are very few Americans who care if a business with plants in Mexico suffers because it has plants in Mexico.
Also, those suffering businesses will have an incentive to tell their Democratic representatives to simply give the President the 5 billion, so they can go back to what they were doing.
Where do you get these notions and 'easy' answers? From the orange loser?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/us/politics/trade-deficit-tariffs-economists-trump.html
>> Next, there are very few Americans who care if a business with plants in Mexico suffers because it has plants in Mexico.
Man.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/here-are-202-companies-hurt-trumps-tariffs
Top trading partners with which the U.S. runs a deficit.
China
Canada
Mexico
Japan
Germany
South Korea
India
France
Italy
Taiwan
Ireland
Switzerland
Vietnam
Malaysia
Thailand
Columbia
Israel
Spain
Indonesia
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States
@davidmoran, coming from CATO that’s impressive. FWIW: after subscribing to their monthly commentaries at Amazon, I quickly cancelled & and received a full refund. “Libertarian” - yes. But much of it’s way out there on the right, IMHO.
Lastly, this here is a discussion on why trade deficits do matter - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/the-trade-deficit-does-to_b_9563610.html
It is true that no man is an island. But it is also true that things that are good in certain circumstances are not necessarily good in all circumstances.
Next, no man is simply a consumer, but instead both a consumer and a producer. If the current trade situation negatively effects one's ability to produce, then it is not self evident that everyone/anyone is in a better situation overall by looking simply at what happens to consumption due to trade.
That HuffPo thing is weak. So is it that you think these matters are zero-sum? The key thing is the value of imports. The very purpose of trade, someone once wrote.
A conservative take:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/opinion/trump-china-trade-deficit.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/opinion/trump-trade-tariffs-china.html
>> very few Americans who care if a business with plants in Mexico suffers because it has plants in Mexico.
Sounds like a US farmer saying we need to give the trade war more time. (No, not misreading plants as green things.)
I'm sure that I said this recently but alas and alack, apparently I have to repeat myself.
Anyone calling a trade deficit some sort of economic evil isn't thinking it through.
We have a trade deficit when we spend more on exports from a country than they spend on imports from us. Duh, it means WE HAVE MORE STUFF. We trade specie for goods and services. They get the specie and WE GET THE STUFF.
So please stop talking about the deficit as an issue. What IS an issue with our Chinese trading partners is playing by international rules. That would address intellectual property and trademarked goods and it should make transparent gov't involvement in companies. Now on this latter point about gov'ts subsidizing industries . . . it's all a crock of shit. We've been subsidizing our sugar industry since before the revolution and still are. What we want is transparency of this sort of stuff from all parties.
Now with these issues needing to be addressed, we can deal with it like civilized people and drop all these insane tariffs and really make a deal. Hell, tariffs have NEVER done anyone any good except the owners of the protected industries. US Steel is making out like a raped ape on the backs of all Americans. Bullshit.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
and so it goes,
peace,
rono