China signals opening for trade talks with US (1 Viewer)

[noonereal]

A RINO is a Liberal registered as a Republican, AFAIC.

Never was till the crazies came alive under Trump's spell.

 

[BabaVoss]

We bought X amount of goods, say its $100B. We paid China $100B. We received $100B worth of goods.
They bought $50B worth of goods. China paid us $50B. They received $50B worth of goods.
This is how trade works. We don't "lose" money in that scenario. We each got what we paid for.

That's all true on a consumer level. It ignores the facts on a national economics level. (See my previous post)

It is true on any level. Your imagined "loss" doesn't exist. This is how trade works.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Never was till the crazies came alive under Trump's spell.

Always has been. That's why they're called, RINOs.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

We bought X amount of goods, say its $100B. We paid China $100B. We received $100B worth of goods.
They bought $50B worth of goods. China paid us $50B. They received $50B worth of goods.
This is how trade works. We don't "lose" money in that scenario. We each got what we paid for.

It is true on any level. Your imagined "loss" doesn't exist. This is how trade works.

In your example, we did, indeed, get what we each paid for. But when the buying and selling is over, who has more money to buy things from other people? China has $100 Billion to buy stuff from, say, England. But we only have $50 billion to buy stuff from England.

Or, China has $100 Billion to distribute to their poor, but we only have $50 billion for our poor.

Or China has $100 Billion to invest in AI, but we only have $50 Billion to invest in AI.

Get it yet?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

In your example, we did, indeed, get what we each paid for. But when the buying and selling is over, who has more money to buy things from other people? China has $100 Billion to buy stuff from, say, England. But we only have $50 billion to buy stuff from England.

Or, China has $100 Billion to distribute to their poor, but we only have $50 billion for our poor.

Or China has $100 Billion to invest in AI, but we only have $50 Billion to invest in AI.

Get it yet?

The simplicity is stupefying. You are going back to some absurd household accounting that has no basis in reality. We don't have some magic bank account where all export sales are collected to determine how much we can import or how much we distribute in social spending. You are trying to make tariffs a much larger component of US federal revenue than it is in reality. You come up with all sorts of fantasies about how the US macro economy functions, and you have no idea what the size of any of this is. Our total exports are 85% of China's, but we have a much stronger domestic market that far and away determines what level of revenue is collected for ALL federal spending.

If you want more revenue so that we can have more subsidies to fund AI ( or any other higher value or strategic products) at the levels the Chinese do, well, there is a whole lotta wealth at the top of the pyramid.

 

[noonereal]

Always has been. That's why they're called, RINOs.

Interesting. Us Reagan republicans were actually liberal. Who new?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Interesting. Us Reagan republicans were actually liberal. Who new?

Forn says that McCain was just "Obama lite".......which is kinda funny since Cindy is a Budweiser sugar momma.....but I digress.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

We don't have some magic bank account where all export sales are collected to determine how much we can import or how much we distribute in social spending.

What we have is a national economy. The more money comes in/stays in it compared to the amount that goes out, the better off the overall economy is. Even a lib should be able to grasp that.

you have no idea what the size of any of this is

What size does it have to be, before you consider it worth thinking about? Obviously, $300 billion isn't enough. You guys have never learned what Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we're talking real money." Your thinking is what justifies what you hate - DOGE.

there is a whole lotta wealth at the top of the pyramid.

My God. And there we have the essential part of Liberal economic thinking!

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What we have is a national economy. The more money comes in/stays in it compared to the amount that goes out, the better off the overall economy is. Even a lib should be able to grasp that.

Our TOTAL trade deficit, TOTAL Imports minus TOTAL exports... is 1.6% of our GDP, it is so insignificant, it is not worth talking about. Our biggest component of the trade deficit with China are electronics, we are never going to go back to building, let alone assemble, circuit boards. We can do much higher value items than that, it is absurd.

What size does it have to be, before you consider it worth thinking about? Obviously, $300 billion isn't enough.

Its actually around $500B, but that is less than 2% of our GDP, you have no idea of the amounts we are talking about.

You guys have never learned what Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we're talking real money." Your thinking is what justifies what you hate - DOGE.

DOGE is not going to help the trade deficit, here again you have no idea what any of this does. This just mindless spewing of words.

My God. And there we have the essential part of Liberal economic thinking!

You started talking about subsidies, and you have no idea that you are talking about subsidies....or where in our form of govt they are funded.
This is all so stupid.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

1.6% of our GDP, it is so insignificant, it is not worth talking about.

Half a trillion dollars is "insignificant?" Good Lord, no wonder we owe $36 trillion!

DOGE is not going to help the trade deficit, here again you have no idea what any of this does

No, DOGE won't help the trade deficit. But the Liberal attitude toward spending money is why DOGE is necessary, It's why we have to start watching the "merely" $1 billion or so expenditures.

Yesterday I heard someone say that "Democrats have no sense of responsibility with the taxpayers' money," and your "insignificant" crack is a prime example of it.

This is all so stupid.

Yeah, it is. I just hope there's not going to be too many like you in the next Congress.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Half a trillion dollars is "insignificant?" Good Lord, no wonder we owe $36 trillion!

Yes, 1.6% of anything is generally considered in statistics to be insignificant. Your lot is ALWAYS hung up on nominal levels and can't view anything in the big scheme.

No, DOGE won't help the trade deficit.

So it was stupid to include it in a discussion of TD.

But the Liberal attitude toward spending money is why DOGE is necessary, It's why we have to start watching the "merely" $1 billion or so expenditures.

You just admitted DOGE has nothing to do with the TD, and then in the next breath you double the trade deficit.... and call it an "expenditure".

Yesterday I heard someone say that "Democrats have no sense of responsibility with the taxpayers' money," and your "insignificant" crack is a prime example of it.

What the **** does the trade deficit, the difference between exports and imports of goods and services sold primarily by businesses.....have to do with......tax dollars/federal spending?

You are still conflating on a massive scale, you just can't keep this stuff straight. Its amazing.

Yeah, it is. I just hope there's not going to be too many like you in the next Congress.

Thats an even dumber diversion! Have you seen the polls? my gawd, the shit you say!

 

[medi]

So there are 8 pages here and I concentrated on the 8th page and that discussion and admit to confusion and then did a search of this thread for the term "history" and got one hit that wasn't related to my thinking and I did a search of the term "historical" and got no hits.

Is there anyone that has knowledge about past worries about this issue in U.S. history? Yes, I'll now go check Google's search engine --- well, soon, --- but just wondering if there is anyone in this discussion, on any page, that can connect the present situation with a past situation that kind of matches 'now'? [I'm not even sure I asked that correctly.]

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Yes, 1.6% of anything is generally considered in statistics to be insignificant.

Half a trillion dollars is the total income taxes paid by millions of Americans. You think the work they had to do to contribute that much is "insignificant?"

You are still conflating on a massive scale, you just can't keep this stuff straight. Its amazing.

I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to understand that all money in the country is part of the national economy. For you to think that one "bucket" of money of that size is so "insignificant" that it doesn't matter to the whole is incredible to me, and an example of the irresponsibility of Democrats with the taxpayers' hard-earned money.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Half a trillion dollars is the total income taxes paid by millions of Americans. You think the work they had to do to contribute that much is "insignificant?"

US federal income taxes from individuals amounted to ....wait for it.....$2.4TRILLION.

Cmon man.

I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to understand that all money in the country is part of the national economy. For you to think that one "bucket" of money of that size is so "insignificant" that it doesn't matter to the whole is incredible to me, and an example of the irresponsibility of Democrats with the taxpayers' hard-earned money.

When you start to grasp some basic ideas and numbers, get back to me.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

US federal income taxes from individuals amounted to ....wait for it.....$2.4TRILLION.

So half a trillion is 20%. "Insignificant?" If you think it is, would you support cutting everyone's taxes by 20%?

When you start to grasp some basic ideas and numbers, get back to me.

When you have a number that isn't "insignificant," let us know.

 

[roberthughey]

1) The money goes to Chinese companies, not the military.

2) Trade isn't a one way benefit, it's a two way benefit.

3) A trade deficit isn't lost money. We get goods in exchange, which are worth more than the money, that's why we buy them.

4) US consumers and companies choose to buy Chinese goods. The deficit reflects voluntary market behavior, not any sort of hostile act.

US trade deficit was $1.15 trillion in 2023. Our wealth is leaving this country.

------------------

Trade Surpluses by Country​

1.	mainland China	$829,396,324,000
2.	Germany	$232,627,084,000
3.	Russia	$199,466,025,000
4.	Saudi Arabia	$147,118,412,000
5.	Vietnam	$118,564,407,000

Trade Deficits by Country​

1.	United States	-$1,153,373,387,000
2.	United Kingdom	-$272,171,178,000
3.	India	-$240,578,858,000
4.	France	-$140,603,775,000
5.	Türkiye	-$106,351,679,000

2023 Report Card for Trade Surpluses & Deficits by Country

Report Card for Trade Surpluses and Deficits for all Countries in 2023

www.worldstopexports.com

 

[BabaVoss]

We bought X amount of goods, say its $100B. We paid China $100B. We received $100B worth of goods.
They bought $50B worth of goods. China paid us $50B. They received $50B worth of goods.
This is how trade works. We don't "lose" money in that scenario. We each got what we paid for.

It is true on any level. Your imagined "loss" doesn't exist. This is how trade works.

In your example, we did, indeed, get what we each paid for.

Correct.

But when the buying and selling is over, who has more money to buy things from other people? China has $100 Billion to buy stuff from, say, England. But we only have $50 billion to buy stuff from England.

For that to be true we would have to have spent all the money we had, and China has magically produced $100B worth of goods at no cost. Neither can be true.

Or, China has $100 Billion to distribute to their poor, but we only have $50 billion for our poor.

Or China has $100 Billion to invest in AI, but we only have $50 Billion to invest in AI.

Get it yet?

See above.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

For that to be true we would have to have spent all the money we had

I made a bad assumption. I assumed that a reader would recognize that my example dealt with our subject, which was the trade imbalance.

 

[BabaVoss]

I made a bad assumption. I assumed that a reader would recognize that my example dealt with our subject, which was the trade imbalance.

You've been consistently wrong in your assumptions and your examples.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

You've been consistently wrong in your assumptions and your examples.

I didn't expect that adults in a forum such as this would have a smart-ass attitude or display it in discussions. "My bad."

 

[BabaVoss]

I didn't expect that adults in a forum such as this would have a smart-ass attitude or display it in discussions. "My bad."

I expect people to make rational arguments based on facts. We should both get used to disappointment.