Trade Deficit in U.S. Unexpectedly Widens to $53.1 Billion

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by DA60, Aug 12, 2011.

  1. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    First, the trade deficit is not just larger. But it is also larger as a % of the total value of all imports/exports now as compared to early '09.

    And I think one of the main reasons is because most commodities are priced in U.S. dollars and America imports SO many of it's commodities.

    So as the value of a buck goes down, it actually costs Americans more to buy and ship the commodities to America before they are manufactured then for foreign currencies that are rising against the dollar.
    These foreign currencies can now buy more dollar-priced commodities then they could before in comparison to America.
     
  2. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    doesn't need to.

    this is basic textbook stuff.


    did you do econs in high school?

    if you did - you would have learnt this.
     
  3. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I never said this idea is wrong.

    Though to me it looks like the equivalent of economic 'well duh'.


    He disagreed with my original point.

    I asked him for proof that it was wrong.

    He provided none.

    And posting some 'well duh' economic idea proves nothing.

    The facts have shown my point was correct.

    The dollar has weakened...the trade deficit is way up...thereby strongly suggesting that the weaker dollar has not helped the trade deficit (short of someone providing unbiased factual evidence to the contrary).

    End of story.


    I will put it simpler for you people:

    Prove that the trade deficit could not be larger because of the weaker dollar in this particular case?
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm ashamed to say that I did find a level of entertainment in it. A guilty admission, but there is a lesson here. The Austrian wannabe will tend to refer to the irrelevance of the econometric approach. In reality we see that it goes further: i.e. a refusal to accept simple concepts, such as supply & demand, in order to preach without the inconvenience of economic reality
     
  5. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    BTW - I wanted to add:

    A simple lesson for people:

    You cannot prove a theory is right or wrong without testing it with actual data/facts.

    You can hope it's right/wrong, believe it is, prey, assume or whatever.

    But you cannot know.

    Somewhere along the line you actually have to test it in the real world or it means nothing....it's just a theory...a guess...a hope(?).
     
  6. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    But do you honestly believe this is the stance of those trained in the field, or just those who parrot the idea they learn from Mises.org and CafeHayek?

    As for the OP, I don't think you can simply look at how much we import and export and draw any conclusions at all about the outcome. Whether we create the goods here or import them is completely irrelevant, especially when you consider these statistics only take into account the final products and never the sub-components of the final products. So while an I-Pad may be constructed in China, the parts are made in a variety of places and more importantly the idea for such a creation spawned in the US and often ideas are far more valuable than any final product.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Almost always the latter! I do think that there are a few limited thinkers that fly the Austrian banner. However, that's the same for many of the marginal schools (e.g. non-researchers will often call themselves heterodox in a bid to explain their cv)
     
  8. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hey..I just figured it out.

    People like Reiver and others that love to talk on and on about economic theory are 'anti-numerists' - they seem to dislike numbers.

    While Austrian Schoolers seem to like talk, numbers and logic.

    Anti-numerists seem to like talk, talk and more talk.

    It's like they are allergic to numbers.



    Take this thread started by Reiver for example:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/175404-economic-diversity.html

    In this economic thread that he started he typed 53 posts (okay - so I am bored this afternoon) and mentioned numbers only 3 times (from what I saw - I just glanced) in all 53 of them. And - from what I saw - none of them were related to economics directly.

    That is an anti-numerist people.

    :)
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neatly summarised. Let's hope it impacts on the 'numerist'
     
  10. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So what did we learn here?

    That a weaker U.S. dollar did not turn around the U.S. trade deficit.

    That despite the fact the dollar is MUCH weaker then it was in early '09, the trade deficit is MUCH worse.

    So much for that theory - in regards to America anyway.
     

Share This Page