US economy under Trump, are we going towards emminent downturn?

In 2015 the US trade deficit is $531.5 B.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276

and Trump is declaring to withdraw from TPP covering 40% of Global economy.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...l/news-story/cc3234c84f86054690c382807c5e76c6

and now China is posing in creating RCEP to replace the vacuum US created.
http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/donald-trump-apec-trade-china/

I don't know how could we continue effective trading when China is in control?
With the present stance of Trump the initiative is to bring home jobs but in the same time losing grip of the market that supports commerce and eventually with the jobs.
In this coming January are we heeding towards economic uncertainties and quagmire?
what are your thoughts?

 

Today, Trump said he would seek bi-lateral agreements with our trading partners.

So, it would seem that stepping back from the TPP doesn't necessarily mean an end to all trade with other nations.

And, keep in mind that China needs the U.S. as a trading partner.

 

Granny says, "Mebbe...

... if the stock market goes up too much...

... den deys gonna be a correctional downturn.

 

If you create a Yes/No poll, DO NOT make it multiple choice, genius LOL

PS TPP is not in effect yet, "withdrawing" from a non-functional agreement will keep the status quo and will do us no harm. Hillary wanted to withdraw from TPP too Duh

 

I don't know how China and the rest would react when Trump's view of isolationism is being placed on the table during the agreements. I could see the intricacies of prospering our own and giving them disadvantages.
China as a communist country could easily make amends with their position for without hindrance the 1.4B strong Chinese population/traders could easily be dictated what to do.

and there is already an established cooperation between China,Japan, and South Korea.
China with two key allies of the US that is somehow I think will become a leverage to gather other states placing the US in such an awkward position in terms of trading.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160117000456

 

Oooops, sorry for that,
Yeah, but not keeping the status quo would make it up for grabs for someone who wanted market controls.
and leave us enslave of the controlling policies that they would furnish later on.

 

I don't think our position will be awkward. We are a wealthy country of 333 million people. China and others will trade with us.

 

I don't know if I will agree,
for Trumps battle cry is "To make America Great Again".
What's that suppose to mean?

 

We're less than 20% of China's exports.

By dumping TPP we open the Pacific region for China to lead with partners such as Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

I don't know how dumping our partners makes us stronger.

 

It was a campaign slogan, and it means different things to different people. But whether or not other countries trade with us is a business decision on their part. There is no TPP now, and they trade with us.

I don't think we're "dumping" anybody. TPP has never been approved by Congress. If other countries want to make agreements between themselves, they may. I can't believe any country does not want to trade with the U.S. if they have marketable, exportable goods. That would be stupid.

Look ... to be fair to American manufacturers and workers, we need to close the trade imbalance. Nobody is saying we need to be unfair with other countries; we just want it to be fair. That's all.

And remember, I never believed her or trusted her, but Hillary was against it too (after she was for it), so Hillary supporters should be happy Trump's position is the same as Hillary's on this.

 

The issue isn't whether they want to trade with us (or we with them).

The issue DOES have to do with the terms of that trade. If there is a TPP that continues without the US, China will lead it and the terms they use will be agreed within that group. And, as a single nation we will have less influence on the rules of trade in the Pacific region - Asia, North and South America, etc.

If you want to move the rules of trade, those are the people you need to agree with. And, by deciding to ignore them all, we're in a weaker position.

Clinton was for it up until there were features that disadvantaged workers in America without there being any justification or compensation.

Trump's position is not Clinton's position, as Clinton would be interested in fixing the trade deal, whereas Trump has said he will just blow it off.

Trump has said nothing at all about trade deals other than to say his would be "better" - whatever the heck that might mean, especially noting that Trump has pointed to no specifics of the deal.

 

Who wants to ignore them all? Trump has recently talked about making bi-lateral agreements with other countries. Other countries must negotiate with us because that is good business.

I could understand the Aussie's not wanting us to export our craft beers, though, and putting Foster's out of business ...

 

Having trading partners means we have more leverage in the issues involving workers, monetary policy, dumping, penalties for breaking agreements, tariffs or other protections for specific goods, etc., etc.

It also includes how trade with nonmembers will be conducted.

We do NOT have more influence when we go it alone.

In fact, any TPP will affect the US even if we are not members, because it will affect those we want to trade with.

 

I think the slogan is for the American People.
Okay, what will happen next if China fills in the vacuum as what the supposed members will do while now being stranded "dead in the sea", and controls the tariff? will our products be alluring enough when the prices will become way too high, could we survive a trade war when we are not in control of the market? I think this is foreseen by Trump and he is planning something else.

 

With a $500 billion annual trade imbalance, something has to change.

 

I don't disagree, although I'm more concerned about the jobs aspect of that.

So, where are we going to compete?

We've made changes that allowed US Steel to come back to the US, but when they did so they built highly automated plants that hire few people compared to what we used to employ in steel production.

Today we appear to be ceding the alternative energy equipment market to China, where they have large exports and are rapidly progressing in high technology delivery and in their knowledge base - as measured by their lead in patents in wind and solar.

My own view is that we need to start getting serious about education, making it possible for every citizen to get through college regardless of the financial status of their parents. To encourage the risks involved in developing new technology, we can't be strapping our graduates with tens of thousands in debt at a time when they are essentially penniless, because it means they can not take risk. They can't bet on start ups or new ideas that might not pan out - an investment we absolutely need.

I know what that feels like, as when I came out of school I took a job with a miniscule high tech start up that any sane person would know had a nearly perfect chance of failing. My wife and I struggled. Today, you would recognize the name of that company. But, without those who could afford to work for little on a project that seemed unlikely to succeed, one has to wonder how that industry would have proceeded to being a world wide win for America.

We can't sit back and wonder how to make America in the image of some bygone era. It's a bygone era for very good reasons.

 

I cannot disagree with you. I do think our society must understand that, for young people to succeed, they must have the opportunity to go to college after high school. You are correct that a bygone era is, in fact, a bygone era. However, I do think it is important that the U.S. does actually produce stuff in the U.S. And, I do not think it is fair for a country to sell us ten times the amount of goods as the amount they buy from us.

I have suggested before on PF that we can afford to offer our kids the opportunity to attend 4 years of college in state-funded universities using the funding methods we already have in place. For example, in my state, K-12 education is funded through property taxes. I have suggested that we use that funding method to fund K-12 + 4 years. I am not opposed to providing things if we are willing to pay for them, and if it is done efficiently. I believe all of this can be done at the state level using the financial processes already in place. I remain opposed to a federal mandate and federal management of funding higher education.

I have also suggested that businesses that actually manufacture a product in the U.S. should be exempt from taxation upon their profits. Yes ... Zero. Where tax justice is achieved is in the area of personal income. I have always thought of a business as fundamentally just a group of people working together to make a living. Why we would want to tax the enterprise itself is a mystery to me. So what I'm really getting at is that I would like to see our country become as business friendly as it possibly can. I want our country to do everything in its power to get manufacturing to want to locate here, or if they are here, to stay here. I am in favor of using carrots to this end, not the stick. The stick should be the option of last resort and used sparingly. I am in favor of our country potentially doing some things it has never done before. For example, I was talking about our war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq on another thread the other day, and I noted that the $10 billion we've spent on that war so far would pay for 10 one billion dollar factories, or schooling, or infrastructure. I have to wonder what the effect on Chicago or Detroit would be if 10 new manufacturing facilities sprouted up there. Not only would they directly employ people, but there would be secondary and tertiary employment in support of those enterprises.

If production operations locate here more and more, I suspect that the trade imbalance will gradually start to correct itself. I want the U.S. to be the place to manufacture. I want U.S. manufacturers to stay, and I want foreign manufacturers to be tempted to move here. I want our leaders to fight for these things, and I want them to think out of the box.

Cheers!

 

Good ideas on education.

If people want to go to Walmart or if Trump wants to buy steel from China I'm not so sure we have good tools to stop that while still supporting the exports we have. If we add tariffs, others will, too. And, that will affect our own production and jobs as we lower our exports.

Corporations use water and other utilities, own property, require roads for workers to get there, policing, etc., etc. Deciding those who live in the city have to pay for all that seems a little ridiculous to me. I suppose it would function if everyone worked in the corporation, but that's not the way our cities are built.

We could go on from there if we really wanted to go full tilt progressive. For example, it's our corporate environment that requires education in order to get a job. Leaving it totally to the public to pay for that could be seen as not being the only rational solution.

I do not believe we will ever be "the place" to manufacture. Other nations have caught up with us in manufacturing. Other countries can hit the quality, quantity and price points we can. Other countries have access to the raw materials - sometimes better than we do. We really don't have an edge in manufacturing, possibly with the exception of automation - where the corporate objective is to eliminate jobs, unfortunately.

Also, the problems faced by manufacturing workers today are unlikely to be solved by trying to "bring back" manufacturing. The manufacturing that comes here is going to come in the form of the most automated solutions possible - new plants. They need high tech/design employees, not assembly line workers. More importantly, the reason things went down hill has at least as much to do with the smashing of unions - low job security, no compensation bargaining power, retirement gutted, etc. Today, manufacturing output continues to climb - at the highest it has ever been. The reason these workers don't have jobs is NOT that manufacturing isn't increasing.

I don't mean to be too "down" about this. I just think we need to be realistic about what we need to accomplish. We need to get good at picking up on opportunities for innovation, design, information, high tech, etc.

And, I think it's more than just unfortunate that we're giving up leadership in alternative energy to other countries - such as China. We're so owned by oil/gas that thinking about the future is harder for us than it is in other countries. China is leading in solar and wind and is filing way more patents than others - they are exporting and creating the future's technology in energy. My guess is that our national direction will curve even more sharply toward ignoring that part of our future. We can't afford that kind of inattention.

 

Here is a link that opens to a PDF file. The title is The Myth of America’s Manufacturing Renaissance: The Real State of U.S. Manufacturing, published in 2015 by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. It is lengthy, but it is very interesting. It took me about a half hour to read through it, but it is informative and well-researched. Have a look.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...ance.pdf/RK=0/RS=G2DlnhyhbuaYdAU.1dZjA6wJYNY-

Good discussion with you. Cheers!

 

Bilateral trade =/= no trade.

 

Thanks for the link -

This is going to take me way more than a half hour! It includes some arguments I haven't seen before while confirming other stuff I've read that appears to make sense.

Given the seriousness of the recession along with the changes taking place in manufacturing here and abroad this seems to be an especially tough topic.

 

It is a tough topic, no doubt about it. Haha, well I gave you something that will make you live up to your screen name!

 

True!!

I'm also reading this, from the same organization:

"Fifty Ways to Leave Your Competitiveness Woes Behind:
A National Traded Sector Competitiveness Strategy"

http://www2.itif.org/2012-fifty-ways-competitiveness-woes-behind.pdf


At a quick glance of their top 10 I'm pretty interested in what they seem to be proposing. It goes FAR beyond the "better deals with China" thing, to include the real work necessary to build a more robust manufacturing segment here in the US - not that trade is ignored.

 

Where will we compete? We do not compete against slave wages. As we never did for our entire history until neoliberalism starting changing our policies. How did we manage not to compete against slave wages for most of our history ? Because NOTHING has changed that would make what we did for most of our history moot.

This thinking that we must have our own people competing against the poor of the world, mostly in authoritarian boot heeled communists nations, like china, and now Vietnam, in order to manufacture the goods we buy is nonsense. We will have to go back to what the founders set up, and the model we used for most of our history, until the new robber barons were able to change our economy to globalization. All that this means is allowing our corporations to move to slave labor and then sell it back in our markets. The purpose of gov't by and for the people is to not run the gov't on behalf of robber barons and their interest. The founders were looking out for America and her health, when they set us up to develop and keep industry here, for a nation can only be great by her making what her people consume. For that is the same thing as having sufficient employment. It is in the interest of the nation to have its own people employed. And not by competing against slave labor. This is insanity.

We do not have to indulge in free trade in order to have economic activity. We will only employ the greatest number of our own people by making as much of what we consume as possible. We would be much better off, and the gains by the people would mean less profit for the elites. Which is how we ran this show and became the most powerful nation on earth.

This purpose for trade has been corrupted away from how we used to see it. IF you want to benefit the nation and her people, you do not do it by exporting jobs and importing goods. You do that to max out the income and wealth for the elites.....no other reason. This ain't rocket science, and it is just that basic, that simple. And yet people will try to complicate it, but no matter what ideas and theories are introduced to make the simple, complex, complicated, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, yes, it is a duck.

 

Haha, another 54 pages for you, Mr Readmore! Perhaps when time allows I'll give it a try. 54 pages ... That's gonna take a while.