U.S. economy grew at a 3% rate in Q2, a better-than-expected pace even as Trump’s tariffs hit

[Kushinator]

A trade deficit is not a result of savings.

In a macroeconomic sense, it is precisely that. Money that is spent on foreign goods wouldn't be magically consumed on American products tit-for-tat. The end result is reduced domestic consumption, because the new mix of product is more expensive or simply it does not exist in this district market.

That is absurd. You can't see the difference between buying American and supporting Chinese slave labor by buying goods dumped on the American market.

You don't.

Demanding an explanation of the harm of continuing record trade deficits is like.a passenger on the Titanic demamding to know what's wrong with hitting an iceberg.

Trade deficits are a sign of prosperity. Call out American exceptionalism. When this goes, things will change dramatically.

 

[Variant]

Let's assume 3% growth.

Produce tariffs just hit and produce here has gone up between 60% and 100%. Celery, for example, has gone from $0.79 to $1.50.

3%. Huzzah.

Wages haven't been historically been keeping up with GDP growth so we can expect a small percent of 3% as a raise to deal with the more expensive produce.

Why the government would want to make it policy to have my celery cost significantly more is beyond me.

 

[Luce]

Wages haven't been historically been keeping up with GDP growth so we can expect a small percent of 3% as a raise to deal with the more expensive produce.

Maybe in fantasy land.

Why the government would want to make it policy to have my celery cost significantly more is beyond me.

Because he can.

You say "the government" like it's something more than the fat man.

 

[Variant]

Maybe in fantasy land.

Because he can.

You say "the government" like it's something more than the fat man.

Historically that's how some governments worked. The fat man here requires the support of several literal armies of dumb sycophants.

I feel fully at liberty to question heir idiocy because I don't think they have what it takes to come after me for it.

 

[jpn]

Trump tariffs take $1-billion bite out of GM earnings, shares fall​

July 22 (Reuters) - General Motors' second-quarter earnings took a $1.1-billion hit from tariffs, but the automaker still beat analyst expectations for the period on Tuesday, supported by strong sales of its core gasoline trucks and SUVs.
The largest U.S. automaker by sales said it expects the tariff impact to worsen in the third quarter and stuck to a previous estimate that trade headwinds threaten to hit the bottom line by $4 billion to $5 billion this year. GM said it could take steps to mitigate at least 30% of that impact.

 

[AZRWinger]

In a macroeconomic sense, it is precisely that. Money that is spent on foreign goods wouldn't be magically consumed on American products tit-for-tat. The end result is reduced domestic consumption, because the new mix of product is more expensive or simply it does not exist in this district market.

You seem to be concerned that unless we allow nations like China unrestrained access to our markets to price dump slave labor made goods on our markets domestic consumption will be reduced. Pay no attention to the hollowing out of US manufacturing or the massive outflow of capital, appeasing hostile nations by allowing them to close their markets to our exports is necessary to saving domestic consumption. Makes no sense but it sounds good.

You don't.

Playground taunt.

Trade deficits are a sign of prosperity. Call out American exceptionalism. When this goes, things will change dramatically.

Claiming trade deficits are signs of prosperity is classic, war is peace, freedom is slavery, doublespeak.

 

[ncguy]

i'm still sorting out the claims by the trump administration...the economy is booming with a 3% gpd, but its not booming because of the fed, and the jobs report shows we need a cut in interest rates, but the jobs report was rigged. lol.

god they can't keep their stories straight for even 24 hours.

 

[CSharp]

You seem to be concerned that unless we allow nations like China unrestrained access to our markets to price dump slave labor made goods on our markets domestic consumption will be reduced. Pay no attention to the hollowing out of US manufacturing or the massive outflow of capital, appeasing hostile nations by allowing them to close their markets to our exports is necessary to saving domestic consumption. Makes no sense but it sounds good.

Playground taunt.

Claiming trade deficits are signs of prosperity is classic, war is peace, freedom is slavery, doublespeak.

LMAO, you dont know what you think you know. Go buy a ****ing econ 101 textbook and then come back to the adults table.

 

[Kushinator]

You seem to be concerned that unless we allow nations like China unrestrained access to our markets to price dump slave labor made goods on our markets domestic consumption will be reduced. Pay no attention to the hollowing out of US manufacturing or the massive outflow of capital, appeasing hostile nations by allowing them to close their markets to our exports is necessary to saving domestic consumption. Makes no sense but it sounds good.

I never once considered anything you posted above. Try to address the post you chose to quote.

Playground taunt.

Matter of fact.

Claiming trade deficits are signs of prosperity is classic, war is peace, freedom is slavery, doublespeak.

We as consumers have access to more than the nation is able to produce.

Think about that for a little bit before you even think about responding.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Tarrifs should leverage our trade deficit to increase tax revenue.

Not much, since the USA doesn't really need trade, but a little bit.

 

[AZRWinger]

LMAO, you dont know what you think you know. Go buy a ****ing econ 101 textbook and then come back to the adults table.

Again you are desperately trying to deflect from the facts to make it all about me.

Take your own advice, educate youtself.

 

[AZRWinger]

I never once considered anything you posted above. Try to address the post you chose to quote.

Of course you don't consider anything but the same trade policies that have led to the record trade deficit that is the subject of this discussion.

Matter of fact.

The fact is the US is suffering from an historic trade deficit brought on by misshapen policies that allow foreign nations to dump goods onto our market while putting up barriers to their own.

We as consumers have access to more than the nation is able to produce.

Of course we do and will continue to have access to foreign imports. Claiming the Trump administration advocates otherwise is a strawman.

Think about that for a little bit before you even think about responding.

 

[Kushinator]

Of course you don't consider anything but the same trade policies that have led to the record trade deficit that is the subject of this discussion.

You haven't explained why a trade deficit is harmful.

We do know that when the trade deficit falls, so does consumption, which makes up how much of the U.S. economy?

Address my posts instead of responding to them as if you are having a 1 on 1 with the left.

The fact is the US is suffering from an historic trade deficit brought on by misshapen policies that allow foreign nations to dump goods onto our market while putting up barriers to their own.

Careful using words you didn't fully understand. Give me some examples of dumping in the U.S.. I will wait

Of course we do and will continue to have access to foreign imports. Claiming the Trump administration advocates otherwise is a strawman.

They will be more expensive or not available at all. The Trump administration has convinced his cult that autarky is the way, which is evident in your responses.

 

[AZRWinger]

You haven't explained why a trade deficit is harmful.

Really? It takes tremendous denial to demand an explanation of why a record trade deficit is toxic.

We do know that when the trade deficit falls, so does consumption, which makes up how much of the U.S. economy?

We know you claim this downturn in consumption from balanced trade. There is no proof that dollars that might have been spent on slave labor Chinese goods wouldn't have been spent on other goods or gasp, added to accumulated savings.

Address my posts instead of responding to them as if you are having a 1 on 1 with the left.

It's a public debate forum, not a one on 1 contest.

Careful using words you didn't fully understand. Give me some examples of dumping in the U.S.. I will wait

Someone who thinks trade deficits are savings warns me against using words I don't understand. Classic irony.

The Chinese government subsidizes their industrial production at a far higher rate than other countries including the US.

"U.S. officials and executives are particularly concerned about Chinese electric vehicles and solar panels. China comprises over 80 percent of the world's manufacturing capacity for solar panels and accounted for more than 60 percent of global EV sales in 2022."

US warns China against predatory dumping to save economy

China is estimated to spend twice as much on industrial subsidies as the U.S., prompting fears of a surge in Chinese goods.

www.newsweek.com

But not to worry, Kim Jung Biden or the autopen signed an XO lifting trade restrictions on Chinese green energy exports to the US. America Last policy paves the way for China to become the new OPEC with a hammerlock on the US economy. What could go wrong?

They will be more expensive or not available at all. The Trump administration has convinced his cult that autarky is the way, which is evident in your responses.

Cult? The Chinese planned on implementing the EV portion of their dumping scheme mentioned in the linked article by building manufacturing plants just across the border in Mexico flooding the US market with so-called Mexican imports. The so-called Trump cult with support from labor rank and file promised tarriffs to prevent the dumping scheme.

Trump's trade policy aims aren't autarky, the goal is fair trade with foreign governments opening their markets to US export.

 

[CSharp]

Really? It takes tremendous denial to demand an explanation of why a record trade deficit is toxic.

We know you claim this downturn in consumption from balanced trade. There is no proof that dollars that might have been spent on slave labor Chinese goods wouldn't have been spent on other goods or gasp, added to accumulated savings.

It's a public debate forum, not a one on 1 contest.

Someone who thinks trade deficits are savings warns me against using words I don't understand. Classic irony.

The Chinese government subsidizes their industrial production at a far higher rate than other countries including the US.

"U.S. officials and executives are particularly concerned about Chinese electric vehicles and solar panels. China comprises over 80 percent of the world's manufacturing capacity for solar panels and accounted for more than 60 percent of global EV sales in 2022."

US warns China against predatory dumping to save economy

China is estimated to spend twice as much on industrial subsidies as the U.S., prompting fears of a surge in Chinese goods.

www.newsweek.com

But not to worry, Kim Jung Biden or the autopen signed an XO lifting trade restrictions on Chinese green energy exports to the US. America Last policy paves the way for China to become the new OPEC with a hammerlock on the US economy. What could go wrong?

Cult? The Chinese planned on implementing the EV portion of their dumping scheme mentioned in the linked article by building manufacturing plants just across the border in Mexico flooding the US market with so-called Mexican imports. The so-called Trump cult with support from labor rank and file promised tarriffs to prevent the dumping scheme.

Trump's trade policy aims aren't autarky, the goal is fair trade with foreign governments opening their markets to US export.

Way to say you dont know what the **** you're talking about without saying you don't know what the **** you're talking about. You've been asked multiple times to explain how trade deficits are "toxic". The best explanation you seem to be able to muster is feigned indignation. Weak ass shit.

 

[AZRWinger]

Way to say you dont know what the **** you're talking about without saying you don't know what the **** you're talking about. You've been asked multiple times to explain how trade deficits are "toxic". The best explanation you seem to be able to muster is feigned indignation. Weak ass shit.

Way to ignore 3/4 of the comment documenting the toxicity of a record trade deficit. Resorting to obscenity only highlights the desperate denial.

 

[Kushinator]

Really? It takes tremendous denial to demand an explanation of why a record trade deficit is toxic.

There you go again. Explain it. You can't

We know you claim this downturn in consumption from balanced trade. There is no proof that dollars that might have been spent on slave labor Chinese goods wouldn't have been spent on other goods or gasp, added to accumulated savings.

That's not what the data shows. The cheaper priced goods allow for additional consumption, primarily in the services sector, which accounts for 80% of the U.S. economy. Low value manufacturing doesn't matter, and it will never come back.

It's a public debate forum, not a one on 1 contest.

You're not addressing the posts you chose to quote.

Someone who thinks trade deficits are savings warns me against using words I don't understand. Classic irony.

Trade deficits are a function of savings.In the most distinct terms, they represent foreign savings.

I've gone over this so many times it isn't worth repeating... So ill link a previous post:

You've neglected savings and international capital flow.

Total Savings = Private Savings + Public Savings (Taxes - Expenditures) + Foreign Savings (Imports - Exports)

If we assume the quantity of financial capital supply equals the quantity of financial demand (meaning supply is equal to demand at some rate of interest), we can derive Total Investment or (I).

S + (M - X) = I + (T - G)

Rearraning for I,

I = S + (T - G) + (M - X)

Meaning, when we run a trade surplus, total investment will be lower ceteris paribus. Which is just another way to show that you cannot fully grasp economic growth on the basis of accounting identities alone. This concept will be covered in greater detail in intermediate macroeconomics at most colleges and universities.

The Chinese government subsidizes their industrial production at a far higher rate than other countries including the US.

So? The U.S. is a service oriented economy. We benefit from access to cheap raw materials and goods.

"U.S. officials and executives are particularly concerned about Chinese electric vehicles and solar panels. China comprises over 80 percent of the world's manufacturing capacity for solar panels and accounted for more than 60 percent of global EV sales in 2022."

You're not capable of reading for comprehension, nor are you aware that the Biden administration banned Chinese automotives from entering the U.S.. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[AZRWinger]

There you go again. Explain it. You can't

As I wrote before, anyone who has balanced a checkbook understands the problems with deficits. Your refusal to at least try or consult with someone who has speaks volumes.

That's not what the data shows. The cheaper priced goods allow for additional consumption, primarily in the services sector, which accounts for 80% of the U.S. economy. Low value manufacturing doesn't matter, and it will never come back.

Your speculation isn't data.

Low profit manufacturing is unlikely to entice US capital investment. What makes you think Trump's trade policy is aimed at socks and t-shirts?

You're not addressing the posts you chose to quote.

Repeated whining doesn't make it valid.

Trade deficits are a function of savings.In the most distinct terms, they represent foreign savings.

Indeed, trade deficits represent FOREIGN savings. Thanks for the confirmation.

I've gone over this so many times it isn't worth repeating... So ill link a previous post:

Did you copy this gibberish or concoct it on your own?

So? The U.S. is a service oriented economy. We benefit from access to cheap raw materials and goods.

We benefit all the way to almost total reliance on the Chinese for green energy equipment and pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile they impose trade restrictions that virtually close their markets tp US exports. The WTO even joins in with the America last policy by declaring China a developing economy authorized to impose import barriers.

You're not capable of reading for comprehension, nor are you aware that the Biden administration banned Chinese automotives from entering the U.S.. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I all do is sputter vapid rhetoric and denials. You refuse to respond to the evidence presented. Of course you claim I am the problem, you can't even attempt a reasoned rebuttal.

Even if your claim about Autopen banning Chinese EV is true, it says nothing about his waiving trade restrictions on green energy equipment. According to you it's good for us to depend on the Chinese for green energy. Brilliant.

 

[Kushinator]

As I wrote before, anyone who has balanced a checkbook understands the problems with deficits. Your refusal to at least try or consult with someone who has speaks volumes.

And that is why you continue to fail... you're relating international trade to balancing a check book.

Your speculation isn't data.

If a typical family has to pay more for clothing, transportation, etc..., they'll have less income remaining to buy services like health care and home repair.

Low profit manufacturing is unlikely to entice US capital investment. What makes you think Trump's trade policy is aimed at socks and t-shirts?

He is broadly taxing people who buy socks and t-shirts. They aren't going to be made here.

Did you copy this gibberish or concoct it on your own?

Gibberish? I wrote that 6 years ago while educating another member. Check the link to the thread.

We benefit all the way to almost total reliance on the Chinese for green energy equipment and pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile they impose trade restrictions that virtually close their markets tp US exports. The WTO even joins in with the America last policy by declaring China a developing economy authorized to impose import barriers.

Would you rather pay more for solar panels and medications?

I all do is sputter vapid rhetoric and denials. You refuse to respond to the evidence presented. Of course you claim I am the problem, you can't even attempt a reasoned rebuttal.

You haven't provided shit other than a poor attitude and an uneducated opinion.

According to you it's good for us to depend on the Chinese for green energy. Brilliant.

If you really cared about domestic manufacturing of solar panels, you wouldn't be here defending tariffs like a cultist.

We can subsidize domestic production. You support tax increases.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Weren't y'all complaining about those prices in October. Prices are high, Trump's gonna bring them down, blah blah blah. I remember a lot of complaining about Biden, the economy, and pricing back then. Funny how it's not really an issue now.

lol

Holy shit... are prices really dropped since then?

Or even held still?

But what the **** about eggs and coffee and groceries or whatever people whine about?