• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTO cuts 2016 world trade growth forecast to 1.7 percent, cites wake-up call

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'The World Trade Organization cut its forecast for global trade growth this year by more than a third on Tuesday, reflecting a slowdown in China and falling levels of imports into the United States.

The new figure of 1.7 percent, down from the WTO's previous estimate of 2.8 percent in April, marked the first time in 15 years that international commerce was expected to lag the growth of the world economy, the trade body said.'

WTO cuts 2016 world trade growth forecast to 1.7 percent, cites wake-up call | Reuters


And this Keynesian/Krugmanomics nonsense is primarily to blame, imo.

'Oh yeah..let's bring interest rates to zero and pump tons of money into the economies of the world...that should fix everything in a few months'. - central banks in 2010.

Macroeconomic morons.
 
So people will consume domestically more than they import/export. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Right from the OP's report...

"The data underlined concerns that, after a long period of growth through globalization and reliance on global trade, governments are increasingly seeking to protect their own industries and promote domestic producers at the expense of foreign competitors."

In other words, nations looking at trade policy and trade condition have put strain on world trade growth forecasts.

Which has zilch to do with "Keynesian/Krugmanomics nonsense."
 

Well, well. After the debt we have run up and with money so plentiful that interest rates in oecd countries are sometimes already und 0 it should make for interesting times, when the s---t hits the fan and hungry for much of the population.
 

Well, the inhabitants are telling their globalist elite politicians, that "Yes, globalism is nice, but not for me".

What good is globalism if you suffer because of it? We've made China rich, and now we are on the brink of war with them.
 
joG said:
You are a fine humorist.
Click to expand...

I read the article. That is what it states: "The data underlined concerns that, after a long period of growth through globalization and reliance on global trade, governments are increasingly seeking to protect their own industries and promote domestic producers at the expense of foreign competitors.

Although all governments deny protectionism, trade is no longer outpacing economic growth as it used to. Trade has grown 1.5 times faster than gross domestic product over the long term, and twice as fast when globalization picked up in the 1990s.

This year trade will grow only 80 percent as fast as the global economy, the WTO said, the first reversal of globalization since 2001 and only the second since 1982."
 

I am afraid it all hangs together via the discontent in the population that we are facing from many sides. One of the things worrying people thinking of their old age is calculating an anuity on their savings at near zero interest rates
 
chuckiechan said:
Well, the inhabitants are telling their globalist elite politicians, that "Yes, globalism is nice, but not for me".

What good is globalism if you suffer because of it? We've made China rich, and now we are on the brink of war with them.
Click to expand...

Hysterics aside about our "brink of war" condition with China, the point is the OP blamed the slow down in Global Trade Growth on "And this Keynesian/Krugmanomics nonsense is primarily to blame, imo."

The reality is nations are starting to look at domestic production of goods and services vs. importing goods and services. Call it protectionism or whatever else, but nations are starting to look at the economic consequences of trade deficits. The other reality is growth is still growth even if it is cut in forecast, meaning there is still some expansion of world trade even if the outlook is changed because of various nation political and/or economic objectives.

The WTO is always going to warn about these sort of things, they have a vested interest in globalization. But just because the outlook changed does not mean we or anyone else needs to panic.
 
joG said:
I am afraid it all hangs together via the discontent in the population that we are facing from many sides. One of the things worrying people thinking of their old age is calculating an anuity on their savings at near zero interest rates
Click to expand...

If you are worried about jobs being exported, or corporations escaping taxes making the debt soar or the ability to service benefit programs challenged, then this is a good sign.
 
Seems to me Trump knows what he's talking about..
 

When trade flows are reduced on government initiative the optimum traverses to a new one at lower general welfare. So, while it is true that the societies rely more on domestic production, their population does it at a poorer level.
 
backpacker said:
If you are worried about jobs being exported, or corporations escaping taxes making the debt soar or the ability to service benefit programs challenged, then this is a good sign.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is a sign of political systems incompetent at dealing with modern technologies and circumstance. But it will reduce consumption and co2 exhaust, which should make the greens happy.
 
joG said:
Nope. It is a sign of political systems incompetent at dealing with modern technologies and circumstance. But it will reduce consumption and co2 exhaust, which should make the greens happy.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like they are dealing quite well with the issues of technology and the economy over the longer term.
 
joG said:
When trade flows are reduced on government initiative the optimum traverses to a new one at lower general welfare. So, while it is true that the societies rely more on domestic production, their population does it at a poorer level.
Click to expand...

People being forced to live within their means is so antiquated a concept, we can't have that can we?
 
backpacker said:
Sounds to me like they are dealing quite well with the issues of technology and the economy over the longer term.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. But the pressures on the lower segments of the populations around the OECD with the merchandise trade imbalances are putting strains on societies and their fiscal situations that are pushing political decisions to abandon free trade.
 
joG said:
When trade flows are reduced on government initiative the optimum traverses to a new one at lower general welfare. So, while it is true that the societies rely more on domestic production, their population does it at a poorer level.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering for some time if I should push this logic to it's final conclusion, and see if I can get anyone to admit that, gosh, if we all went back to subsistence farming, we'd all be richer. Why outsource your shirt-making or house-building jobs to some other family? Think of all the employment!
 
backpacker said:
People being forced to live within their means is so antiquated a concept, we can't have that can we?
Click to expand...

That is true. But it is an archaic and inefficient way to go about it. Very much the last ditch approach.
 
joG said:
I am afraid it all hangs together via the discontent in the population that we are facing from many sides. One of the things worrying people thinking of their old age is calculating an anuity on their savings at near zero interest rates
Click to expand...

Yup. Good thing the Boomers did a super-duper job of saving for their retirement.

This is one of the reasons I still think there isn't much room for growth in the housing market - a large retiree populace is going to be pulling money out of it for the next decade or two.
 

That is certainly a part of the problem and closely related to the others like the trade deficits and level of debt accumulation.
 
joG said:
Yes, I agree. But the pressures on the lower segments of the populations around the OECD with the merchandise trade imbalances are putting strains on societies and their fiscal situations that are pushing political decisions to abandon free trade.
Click to expand...

poor people will have to pay more for low-end items. That creates a market for low end items to be produced domestically. That reduces the number of low-end poor people as they now have another opportunity to work.
 
backpacker said:
poor people will have to pay more for low-end items. That creates a market for low end items to be produced domestically. That reduces the number of low-end poor people as they now have another opportunity to work.
Click to expand...

This works. Sorta. You are still net-decreasing their standard of living by raising the cost of living, but you can (I suppose) produce more low-paying jobs.

Until government increases the cost of human labor above the cost of machine labor in those enterprises. Good thing we as a nation have a super-light regulatory state, no minimum wage, and no Obamacare requirements, eh?
 
backpacker said:
poor people will have to pay more for low-end items. That creates a market for low end items to be produced domestically. That reduces the number of low-end poor people as they now have another opportunity to work.
Click to expand...

It might seem that way at first. But, if you model it and do the maths the result is consistently lower general welfare. Anyone that tells you other is a true snake oil salesperson unless they can demonstrate how the loss will be made up. It won't be out of the cancellation of trade alone and will require a means to fix one's problems and so as to return to free trade as well as explain why it should be better than fixing the problems immediately.
 

One can have free trade and not be engaged in international trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…