Krugman Finally Realizes How Wrong He's Been

[Lafayette]

Krugman's policies hammered the American middle class. Trump played on that. Trump beat Hillary. Therefore, Krugman helped put Trump in office.

No, he didn't. In the fair-and-honest popular-vote Hilary whipped his ass with a $2.1% margin. It was then the Electoral College that "rigged" his ascendance to the presidency.

For the 5th time in history, the winner of the Popular-Vote lost to winner of the Electoral College vote. Whyzzat?

Because the Replicants learned a long, long time ago how to rig the popular-vote in the EC!

You gotta be crazy to accept that sort of nonsense ... !

PS: How to rig the popular vote for the presidency, here: http://interactive.fusion.net/how-to-rig-an-election/electoral-college.html
PPS: And here: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-the-electoral-college-rigged-the-election-for-donald-trump-129259/

 

[Surrealistik]

I think I agree with most of your comment, as hard as it is to understand what you really mean, but the following doesn't feel right:

What's wrong about it?

Being the single biggest economy in the world, and the leading consuming nation in the world, while presiding over the world's foremost reserve currency and the US dollar standard is a hell of a bargaining mechanism for exacting terms that are advantageous; I'm not saying we need to be 'America First' Trumpian, but we have adequate grounds, leverage and justification for demanding trading partners subscribe to certain standards in terms of labour, wages and environmental regulations such that A: their poor aren't brutally exploited and B: they don't end up having a grossly undue advantage over our country through debasement of their working class and environment.

As to what I really mean, it should be abundantly clear: that despite certain elements and consequences of globalization being essentially inevitable, our government should work to service the interests of all of its constituents, not merely the wealthiest among us as it overwhelmingly has since the time of Reagan and onward, while proactively seeking ways to mitigate races to the bottom in international trade that put American manufacturing at such a pronounced disadvantage, and that there was (and is) plenty of room and opportunity to do so between all of those elements I mentioned.

 

[Lafayette]

What's wrong about it?

Being the single biggest economy in the world, and the leading consuming nation in the world, while presiding over the world's foremost reserve currency and the US dollar standard is a hell of a bargaining mechanism for exacting terms that are advantageous; I'm not saying we need to be 'America First' Trumpian, but we have adequate grounds, leverage and justification for demanding trading partners subscribe to certain standards in terms of labour, wages and environmental regulations such that A: their poor aren't brutally exploited and B: they don't end up having a grossly undue advantage over our country through debasement of their working class and environment.

The above indicates how some Americans can't see beyond the three-mile limit.

There has been a new world-trading partner extant now for more than 10 years. It is a collection of countries called the European Union and they are highly comparable to the US.

Yes, the stats for both are not the same, but that is NOT IMPORTANT. If we Yanks like to boast in terms of economic figures, go for it. If that makes you feel better. It is also less relevant.

And rather than do the comparison for you, here is a site that does it very well:
Economy Stats: compare key data on European Union & United States

Select a subject and the site publishes the main factors that distinguish the US from the EU.

It is none too friendly on either "collection of states" but in general it does underscore the fact that the US has more economic-muscle.

What it doesn't do is delve into the polemic of whether a state with National Healthcare (and thus longer average life-span) or a post-secondary schooling that is pretty damn inexpensive is a better place to live.

Nonetheless, as a Yank who knows both entities well, I figure the above are the key underlying factors that distinguish the two most importantly ... !

 

[Surrealistik]

The above indicates how some Americans can't see beyond the three-mile limit.

Not at all.

The bottom line is that the US was (and frankly still is) in an excellent position to set terms of trade agreements, particularly with developing countries, and this was especially true at around the time globalization really started to take off back in the 90s. If the price of doing business with the States was the implementation of certain wage floors and environmental and labour standards, that would of course gladly be paid, nor would such terms be anathema to or opposed by the EU; in fact, I could easily see them being signatories to such an agreement as this improves the competitiveness of their manufacturing with developing countries as well in a way that is ethical.

Ultimately, no country with leadership possessed of its senses is going to leave such a huge pile of money on the table with respect to trade with the US, and that's true whether or not the EU exists, and whether or not the EU would demand lesser standards from its trading partners.

 

[Waddy]

No, he didn't. In the fair-and-honest popular-vote Hilary whipped his ass with a $2.1% margin. It was then the Electoral College that "rigged" his ascendance to the presidency.

For the 5th time in history, the winner of the Popular-Vote lost to winner of the Electoral College vote. Whyzzat?

Because the Replicants learned a long, long time ago how to rig the popular-vote in the EC!

You gotta be crazy to accept that sort of nonsense ... !

PS: How to rig the popular vote for the presidency, here: http://interactive.fusion.net/how-to-rig-an-election/electoral-college.html
PPS: And here: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-the-electoral-college-rigged-the-election-for-donald-trump-129259/

Democrats rig the popular vote, Republicans rely on the Electoral College. The college is the legit way to the presidency. It's the law. And in any case, Krugman helped provide Trump with a voter base where it counted in those key "used to be" manufacturing states.

 

[Waddy]

It was the breaking of the unions that enabled the exportation of jobs. Unions were a compact between employers and employees for mutual benefit. With the unions gone the employers no longer felt they needed the workers and sold them out to the lowest bidder. It was actually a good thing in many ways since it had been decades since businesses had put any money back in their factories and they where outdated and inefficient. If it was not China it would have been somewhere else where living standards were lower. It would have worked out if owners were willing to give raises to the people that remained but there was no way for employees to pressure the employers for a share of the increased profits from outsourcing. And wa lah we have the highest income maldistribution in the free world.

On the contrary, unions were a major reason jobs went offshore. Unions were just too inflexible. BTW; the increased profit from outsourcing is primarily passed along to shareholders. That's how business works. If those union employees you talk about wanted a piece of the profit, they should have bought some company stock. They had the money.

Offshore became possible when container ships and global communication developed, and the US cracked down on cleaning up the environment. But all we did was move the pollution somewhere else, along with the jobs in those polluting industries. And those companies sought to avoid worker safety laws, benefits, high wages, retirement, and wanted lower taxes. They also wanted an environment where they could evade copyright, and consumer liability. The companies wanted access to growing global markets, which in many countries, like China, meant you must partner with a Chinese company and most production in China. Not much room for growth left in the US domestic market; pretty saturated with product. So union busting was just a part of the reasoning. A major part, but only one part.

And by and large, companies HAD to move overseas. If your competitor moves overseas and enjoys all those great conditions for manufacturing, you better move offshore as well or you will be out of business. Eventually, everybody moves. Busting unions is only a byproduct of the process. Besides, the most effective way to bust a union was worked out and implemented by Iowa Beef long ago; move from large scale urban manufacturing to rural, small town. In other words, get out of big cities. That's why meat packing is no longer done in Chicago or Kansas City. It was moved to small town USA. Also closer to the cows. You might have noticed Toyota doesn't build factories in Detroit.

So, you see, it's much more complicated than simply busting unions.

And, it also points to why we need new treaties that recognize these issues. American manufacturing is at a great disadvantage for many reasons, and the role of government should be at least to negotiate treaties that level the playing field. Trump recognized that need. Biden, being in the pocket of China, will go back to business as usual. The American middle class worker is screwed.

 

[Antiwar]

Democrats rig the popular vote, Republicans rely on the Electoral College. The college is the legit way to the presidency. It's the law. And in any case, Krugman helped provide Trump with a voter base where it counted in those key "used to be" manufacturing states.

You're right about one thing: Republicans depend on the unequal voting-power of the Confederate College.

 

[iguanaman]

On the contrary, unions were a major reason jobs went offshore. Unions were just too inflexible. BTW; the increased profit from outsourcing is primarily passed along to shareholders. That's how business works. If those union employees you talk about wanted a piece of the profit, they should have bought some company stock. They had the money.

Offshore became possible when container ships and global communication developed, and the US cracked down on cleaning up the environment. But all we did was move the pollution somewhere else, along with the jobs in those polluting industries. And those companies sought to avoid worker safety laws, benefits, high wages, retirement, and wanted lower taxes. They also wanted an environment where they could evade copyright, and consumer liability. The companies wanted access to growing global markets, which in many countries, like China, meant you must partner with a Chinese company and most production in China. Not much room for growth left in the US domestic market; pretty saturated with product. So union busting was just a part of the reasoning. A major part, but only one part.

And by and large, companies HAD to move overseas. If your competitor moves overseas and enjoys all those great conditions for manufacturing, you better move offshore as well or you will be out of business. Eventually, everybody moves. Busting unions is only a byproduct of the process. Besides, the most effective way to bust a union was worked out and implemented by Iowa Beef long ago; move from large scale urban manufacturing to rural, small town. In other words, get out of big cities. That's why meat packing is no longer done in Chicago or Kansas City. It was moved to small town USA. Also closer to the cows. You might have noticed Toyota doesn't build factories in Detroit.

So, you see, it's much more complicated than simply busting unions.

And, it also points to why we need new treaties that recognize these issues. American manufacturing is at a great disadvantage for many reasons, and the role of government should be at least to negotiate treaties that level the playing field. Trump recognized that need. Biden, being in the pocket of China, will go back to business as usual. The American middle class worker is screwed.

Trade barriers do not work and make things worse for all involved. The idea that will be making tube socks and other low profit items here again is nuts. We need to make cutting edge products with larger profit margins if we want to keep manufacturing here. The problem is that U.S companies do not want to make the investments in the future anymore they would rather take the profits for themselves. Until we make it impractical to siphon off profits and let your business go under we will never have a thriving middle class again. As far as unions are concerned that meme that they forced business to outsource is mostly false. The unions that remain are proof of that. The labor force in Germany is almost all unionized with great results for business and workers.

 

[Waddy]

Trade barriers do not work and make things worse for all involved. The idea that will be making tube socks and other low profit items here again is nuts. We need to make cutting edge products with larger profit margins if we want to keep manufacturing here. The problem is that U.S companies do not want to make the investments in the future anymore they would rather take the profits for themselves. Until we make it impractical to siphon off profits and let your business go under we will never have a thriving middle class again. As far as unions are concerned that meme that they forced business to outsource is mostly false. The unions that remain are proof of that. The labor force in Germany is almost all unionized with great results for business and workers.

I'm not suggesting trade barriers. I'm suggesting trade agreements that level the playing field. And, no, in an ideal world, we probably shouldn't be making tube socks. Low skill labor intensive industries are more suitable to poorly educated countries where people can survive on low wages.. Oh, wait, that exactly describes the US work force.

Yes, the dream was to emulate Germany. Make high value goods and offshore the low hanging fruit like textiles and also offshore the polluting industries like metal casting. Just keep the high tech and value added industries like electronics, optics, luxury goods, and medical equipment. Oh, wait, for that you need a highly educated work force like Germany. For that you need a world class public education system like Germany. The US has never had a world class K-12 public education system. Test scores are always at or near the bottom of developed countries. early on the globalists recognized this fatal flaw. They thought applying business practices would solve the problem. So even more testing, since every businessman knows you can never have enough data. And then change the system based on what works. Those Capitalists!!! But they didn't realize that US public education isn't capitalist. It can't be changed. It is deeply entrenched in mediocrity. It's the largest socialist program in this country. And it works about as well as any socialist program.

So if we will never have that highly educated work force, we shouldn't let the "low hanging fruit" all go off shore. Poorly educated people need jobs, too. They can't ALL work in "service industries" like restaurants and lawn care. They can't ALL work as greeters at Walmart. They can't ALL work as maids and fast food cooks. In this case, maybe we should be making our own tube socks.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm not suggesting trade barriers. I'm suggesting trade agreements that level the playing field. And, no, in an ideal world, we probably shouldn't be making tube socks. Low skill labor intensive industries are more suitable to poorly educated countries where people can survive on low wages.. Oh, wait, that exactly describes the US work force.

Yes, the dream was to emulate Germany. Make high value goods and offshore the low hanging fruit like textiles and also offshore the polluting industries like metal casting. Just keep the high tech and value added industries like electronics, optics, luxury goods, and medical equipment. Oh, wait, for that you need a highly educated work force like Germany. For that you need a world class public education system like Germany. The US has never had a world class K-12 public education system. Test scores are always at or near the bottom of developed countries. early on the globalists recognized this fatal flaw. They thought applying business practices would solve the problem. So even more testing, since every businessman knows you can never have enough data. And then change the system based on what works. Those Capitalists!!! But they didn't realize that US public education isn't capitalist. It can't be changed. It is deeply entrenched in mediocrity. It's the largest socialist program in this country. And it works about as well as any socialist program.

So if we will never have that highly educated work force, we shouldn't let the "low hanging fruit" all go off shore. Poorly educated people need jobs, too. They can't ALL work in "service industries" like restaurants and lawn care. They can't ALL work as greeters at Walmart. They can't ALL work as maids and fast food cooks. In this case, maybe we should be making our own tube socks.

We can not compete on a level playing field and that is the problem and it won't go away with "trade deals". Unbridled capitalism is what has failed us as it always fails when unregulated. We will be making those tube socks for the Chinese and that is my worry. Their middle class is the fastest growing in the world and their wages keep growing too. Free State colleges and vocational training will go a long way to stop that nightmare from happening. The problem with education here is that parents no longer want a better life for their children if it means they are smarter than them. Selfishly clinging to the past needs to end. The past is gone and what made America great was it's visions for the future.

1. Parents are not involved enough.

   Of all the things out of the control of teachers, this one is perhaps the most frustrating. Time spent in the classroom is simply not enough for teachers to instruct every student, to teach them what they need to know. There must, inevitably, be some interaction outside school hours. Of course, students at a socio-economic disadvantage often struggle in school, particularly if parents lack higher levels of education. But students from middle and upper class families aren’t off the hook, either. The demands of careers and an over-dependence on schools put higher-class kids at risk too when it comes to the lack of parental involvement in academics.
   [*]

https://www.theedadvocate.org/10-reasons-the-u-s-education-system-is-failing/

 

[Waddy]

We can not compete on a level playing field and that is the problem and it won't go away with "trade deals". Unbridled capitalism is what has failed us as it always fails when unregulated. We will be making those tube socks for the Chinese and that is my worry. Their middle class is the fastest growing in the world and their wages keep growing too. Free State colleges and vocational training will go a long way to stop that nightmare from happening. The problem with education here is that parents no longer want a better life for their children if it means they are smarter than them. Selfishly clinging to the past needs to end. The past is gone and what made America great was it's visions for the future.

https://www.theedadvocate.org/10-reasons-the-u-s-education-system-is-failing/

Trade deals is how you level the playing field. We just don't insist that they be fair to us. And we don't have "unbridled capitalism". You're thinking 1900. This is heavily regulated 2020. Capitalism ain't the problem.
And we only need 20% of our population to have college degrees. Part of the employment problem right now is too many college educated people for the jobs available that require a college education. Like too many engineers. What we need are vocational trade school trained technicians. Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) says there are 6.000.000 unfilled good paying technical jobs out there. Trouble is, not enough young people come out of high school academically equipped to learn a trade. That's because the trades, (ie., electrician, mechanic, machinist, etc.) are also becoming very technical. You can't repair cars with only a set of wrenches under the old shade tree in the backyard anymore. So your dream of free education only works if those kids in K-12 education come out of school well educated. That ain't happening. Better make those tube socks here, even if we send some of them to China. Those Chinese kids will probably get great educations as their parents do better financially. I know many from India already do. We ain't winning that K-12 education race. We're not Germany. We need jobs for a mediocre work force.

BTW; parents are not involved because they have no say, and they have no choices. That's how socialism works.

 

[iguanaman]

Trade deals is how you level the playing field. We just don't insist that they be fair to us. And we don't have "unbridled capitalism". You're thinking 1900. This is heavily regulated 2020. Capitalism ain't the problem.
And we only need 20% of our population to have college degrees. Part of the employment problem right now is too many college educated people for the jobs available that require a college education. Like too many engineers. What we need are vocational trade school trained technicians. Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) says there are 6.000.000 unfilled good paying technical jobs out there. Trouble is, not enough young people come out of high school academically equipped to learn a trade. That's because the trades, (ie., electrician, mechanic, machinist, etc.) are also becoming very technical. You can't repair cars with only a set of wrenches under the old shade tree in the backyard anymore. So your dream of free education only works if those kids in K-12 education come out of school well educated. That ain't happening. Better make those tube socks here, even if we send some of them to China. Those Chinese kids will probably get great educations as their parents do better financially. I know many from India already do. We ain't winning that K-12 education race. We're not Germany. We need jobs for a mediocre work force.

BTW; parents are not involved because they have no say, and they have no choices. That's how socialism works.

I have a better view of Americans and do not believe we should give up to nations like China. We are not a 2nd class nation and we cannot let profit be the only driver of our economy. Putting America first starts with management of our corporations and they need to make big changes in the way they do business. The idea that they can simply milk their business for maximum profits while running it into the ground must stop. Free vocational training is the way to address the lack of technicians but they need to know their jobs will be secure and provide a good wage too. The playing field need to be leveled here first. No more trickle down economics. We need to make it clear that management will not be the only beneficiaries of growth too and that workers are the true drivers of our economy.

 

[Waddy]

I have a better view of Americans and do not believe we should give up to nations like China. We are not a 2nd class nation and we cannot let profit be the only driver of our economy. Putting America first starts with management of our corporations and they need to make big changes in the way they do business. The idea that they can simply milk their business for maximum profits while running it into the ground must stop. Free vocational training is the way to address the lack of technicians but they need to know their jobs will be secure and provide a good wage too. The playing field need to be leveled here first. No more trickle down economics. We need to make it clear that management will not be the only beneficiaries of growth too and that workers are the true drivers of our economy.

Profits bad? Where do you think all the money comes from that pays the taxes, provides the pay checks, fixes the roads, and funds all the welfare programs? It is created by capitalists. And that "profit' is passed along to stock holders, like yours and my pension funds. And my Roth. And your mutual fund. It is profit from capitalism that is raising millions of Asians and Indians out of poverty. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
And all the tech training in the world, free or otherwise, won't compensate for under-educated students, products of lousy public schools. If you want to fix something, public schools would be a good place to start. Good luck with that.

 

[Visbek]

On the contrary, unions were a major reason jobs went offshore.

In China, manufacturing workers average $6.50 USD/hour. That's below the US minimum wage.

In Vietnam, it's $3/hour.

In the US, it's $15/hour. Meaning an American worker needs to be nearly 3 times more productive than her Chinese counterpart, and 5 times more productive than a Vietnamese worker.

In the 70s and 80s, where did the jobs go? Japan. Which had, wait for it, extensive unions.

Offshoring isn't about unions.

Offshore became possible when container ships and global communication developed...

Sorry, but no.

Foreign manufacturing was either destroyed (Japan, Europe) or massively underdeveloped (China, India) after WWII. Once those nations built or rebuilt their manufacturing capabilities, they started beating the snot out of US companies.

For example, American companies dominated auto manufacturing in the 50s and 60s. because no one else could compete. They got lazy, and refused to innovate; Lee Iacocca had to yank teeth and almost wreck his career to get the Mustang made and rear-wheel drive cars built in the US. Once Japan and Germany got its factories in order, they started making small, efficient, well-built cars that Americans actually wanted to buy. Foreign factories were able to ship cars long before container technology was refined in the 2000s.

 

[Visbek]

I'm suggesting trade agreements that level the playing field.

Yeah, that's not possible. Foreign labor is too cheap. By now, supply chains and expertise and capital are already well established.

Oh, and if you had ever read Krugman's Microecon 101 book, you'd know that trade -- even trade that seems imbalanced -- benefits both parties. That's why people trade.

And, no, in an ideal world, we probably shouldn't be making tube socks. Low skill labor intensive industries are more suitable to poorly educated countries where people can survive on low wages.. Oh, wait, that exactly describes the US work force.

lol, no. A US worker who gets minimum wage is still twice as expensive as one in Vietnam.

Yes, the dream was to emulate Germany.

Why? Oh, I know why. It's because they were able to exploit the Euro's monetary imbalance in their favor.

No, that's not it. It must be because when East and West unified, the East basically got screwed, has higher unemployment, less economic opportunity, a bad work ethic and distrust in government held over from its Communist days....

No, wait, I've got it! It's because the government set up strong worker protections, universal health care, and has strong unions.

Make high value goods and offshore the low hanging fruit like textiles and also offshore the polluting industries like metal casting. Just keep the high tech and value added industries like electronics, optics, luxury goods, and medical equipment.

Hellllo...? That's what the US does.

The top categories for US goods include chemicals; computers and electronics; food and beverages (which is highly automated now btw); motor vehicles and parts; fabricated metal; machinery; aerospace and transportation equipment.

The US has never had a world class K-12 public education system.

True, and that needs to be fixed. Odd thing, Krugman never said otherwise.

So if we will never have that highly educated work force, we shouldn't let the "low hanging fruit" all go off shore. Poorly educated people need jobs, too. They can't ALL work in "service industries" like restaurants and lawn care.

Actually, they can.

Manufacturing employment started falling in the 1950s, and is now near 10% -- and again, the average manufacturing wage is $15/hour. More manufacturing work isn't going to save the middle class, and it definitely isn't going to save the rural communities that feel the most economic stress right now.

Plus, you are completely missing the other side of the equation, namely CEOs and rentiers capturing all the benefits of rising productivity, and reaping almost all the benefits of tax cuts. That's not a result of unions or offshoring or automation, it's a result of executive pay rising, and Republicans slashing taxes for top earners.

 

[Surrealistik]

We can not compete on a level playing field and that is the problem and it won't go away with "trade deals". Unbridled capitalism is what has failed us as it always fails when unregulated. We will be making those tube socks for the Chinese and that is my worry. Their middle class is the fastest growing in the world and their wages keep growing too. Free State colleges and vocational training will go a long way to stop that nightmare from happening. The problem with education here is that parents no longer want a better life for their children if it means they are smarter than them. Selfishly clinging to the past needs to end. The past is gone and what made America great was it's visions for the future.

Trade deals which export certain standards that reduce a significant chunk of regulatory and wage discrepancies certainly would help mitigate some of the pain, but not all (obviously debasing our own standards is unthinkable, much as the GOP would love this). Thus they should be pursued, both because they ultimately do help make domestic workers more competitive with foreign ones in terms of reducing the differential in overall production costs between the US and developing countries, and because they temper the unethical exploitation of foreign workers and the environment.

Beyond that, yes, I agree, we need to shore up the domestic education system and social safety nets (systemic poverty and financial strain have huge adverse impacts on educational performance/attainment), and properly tax the rich benefitting so disproportionately from globalization to fund these changes (among many other things; we would do well to emulate Norway's global unions and programs; Scandinavian style social democracy seems the best way forward overall of models I've yet seen), though I completely disagree with your assertion that what's holding education back is some surreal sort of parental jealousy. Really the core issue with American primary and secondary education is a complex combination of general economic malaise and its run on effects (which is intimately related to the impacts of globalization, wage stagnation and inequality), counterproductive decentralization, and underfunding/underwhelming standards for educators and teachers specifically (not to be confused with spending per student). Unfortunately, I don't see any of these issues being substantively addressed under Biden, even if we were to take the House and Senate, though I very much hope to be wrong.

 

[austrianecon]

The fact that he said that he was wrong is good enough. Acceptance of being wrong is better than being a crybaby about it

Nope, this guy destroyed millions of American's lives with his bs. He should stripped of his teaching post and hung in time square where the middle class of NYC throws whatever they want at him.

 

[I'm Supposn]

On the contrary, unions were a major reason jobs went offshore. Unions were just too inflexible. ...

Waddy, USA' s unions were crippled by cheaper foreign imports and states anti-labor laws.
A trade deficit indicates the nation's value of purchases exceeded the value of all the nation produced. That's poor financial policy for individual entities, and poor national economic policy.
If there's no significant change in USA's global trade policies, we will continue suffering great chronic annual deficits of goods until USA wage's purchasing powers are as poor as wages within our those nations we trade with.

I’m among the proponents of the improved trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s Import Certificates article. Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia .

Import Certificates is a sub substantially market driven proposal which does not enable the government to make any significant determinations other than the approximate value of goods passing through USA’s borders. Valuations are of within the USA expressed in U. S. dollars. Import Certificate policy is compatible with the concept of basic most favored nation concept (which does not prohibit a nation favoring their own entities).

The unilateral trade policy’s self-funding but unlike tariffs, does not provide for government’s negotiating with any domestic or foreign entity. A federal Import Certificates Acts statutes and regulations can be repealed or modified only by an act of congress. The president would be unable to do so with an executive order or a trade agreement. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

... Oh, and if you had ever read Krugman's Microecon 101 book, you'd know that trade -- even trade that seems imbalanced -- benefits both parties. That's why people trade.. ...

Visbek, due primarily to the concept of comparative advantage, all principle participants of international trade transactions generally do realize some net benefits.
But USA's chronic great trade deficits of go trade deficits of goods are net detrimental to our nation's aggregate numbers of jobs and amounts of payrolls. Those net costs are detrimental to USA's wage earning families and increase our governments' costs due to unemployment. Trade deficits indicate the nation's annual spending for products exceed the value of the nations entire production. That's not good economic policy.

Pure free trade does is not of any competitive advantage between a nation' domestic enterprises and trade deficits is of net detriment to their nation's economy. That's why I’m among the proponents of the improved trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s Import Certificates article. Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia . Respectfully, Supposn

 

[eohrnberger]

Krugman has gained sufficient self-awareness that he would realize that he was wrong?
(Yeah, right. When pigs fly)