Trade Wars versus Trade Deficits

There's always a certain level of zero sum component.
If company A sells widgets for $100 and company B can sell those widgets for $99, company B is going to take away all the business from company A.

 

I'm not interested in going back to 19th century economic error. Enjoy.

 

You're thinking in terms of a Globalist.

 

MW is not adjusted up or down based on employment??

MW ranges from $7.25/hour to at least $15.00/hour depending on location. MW has almost nothing to do with employment?

No one ships off jobs? Where things are produced is a business decision! ALL businesses must COMPETE! They compete locally and world-wide. Companies can use resources around the world.

Which companies can you verify don't pay MW? In fact, only about 1.5 million American workers work for MW. And they are not working in manufacturing plants producing exports. Where I live MW is $15.00/hour! NO MATTER what the MW is, ALL companies MUST pay whatever amount is necessary to hire and sustain workers!

The higher the cost of doing business in the US the more difficult to compete world-wide...this is how it has always been.

You're drinking too much Trump Kool-aid! No legitimate US company has a problem with MW.

 

Price is only one component considered when deciding where to consume...

 

So there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jobs going overseas-where do revenue taxes come from then. Do you give any thought to the party winning the balance becoming stronger financially and militarily. Trade does not happen in a vacuum except in a classroom.
so never mind "learning Economics" more Economists agree that deficits are bad long term. run a defict for 5 years ok, a deficit of 5% of volume- sure. A 3-1 trade imbalance is not good, Just because youcan save a dollar , it may be ok for you but not for the host country.

 

Yes, and how many billions of dollars has the U.S. spent over the last 15 years "countering the military threat posed by China" ?

Even pro-free-trade economists generally agree that China has much more gains from this trade than the U.S.

Australian prime minister Scott Morrison pledged to spend £1.1 billion in the Pacific to shore up ties with small island states threatened by China's growing influence in the region.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...nd-1-billion-counter-china-influence-pacific/

The US will join Australia in the redevelopment of a naval base in Papua New Guinea, countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201811181069905298-usa-australia-develop-naval-base-chinese/

I can't find the link now but several years ago (maybe 2009 or 2011) there was an article that the U.S. had spent around $700 million to build a military base in Australia to help counter China's military capabilities in the South Sea.

 

Sounds like a calls to arms for uneconomic grunt! Sorry, but we can't ignore economic reality. It's also very easy to pinpoint the error: Mercantilism 101.