US recession fears are growing

Jobs dissappear in the country with a deficit.

The country with a surplus starts buying up the assets in the country with a deficit. Those assets generate a passive flow of revenue, not so easy to get them back.

China will be able to import farm products from the US without paying for them, because they own the farms now.

 

Trade means more jobs overall. It has nothing to do with trade surpluses or deficits. Voluntarily trade means more wealth, which means more jobs. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a national trade deficit or trade surplus.

You can play make-believe that job disappear in a country with a trade deficit, but it has nothing to do with reality. Please join us back in reality.

 

Not if it means higher levels of inequality within each country.

Trade could actually be counterproductive to GDP of one (or even both, but less likely) country in the long-term.

 

That's only an economic generalization, not a rule.

 

Unless you ask an economist. Or study economics. Or even kind of even vaguely half understand the concepts of voluntary trade and comparative advantage.

Trade. Is. Not. A. Zero. Sum. Game. You are literally trying to erase the basics of capitalism specifically and the the foundations of basic economics in general and turn the entire field back by over 2 centuries. Fun stuff.

Trade creates wealth. More wealth means more jobs. These aren't really controversial statements, in reality.

 

Most economists, not all.

Doesn't mean they are right.

Economics as an academic discipline is as much an ideology as a science.

Trump certainly has economic advisors advocating for the use of tariffs.

 

You may find two or three fringe left economists, the equivalent of the "flat earthers" of economists. All of which will depend on you not looking into the issue too deeply.

 

Not if your son can earn $10 doing something else in the same amount of time.

 

Trade can happen within a country, doesn't need to be between countries.

US still gets most of the benefits of trade without having to trade with other countries.

 

Only if there is a better job opportunity elsewhere for him.

 

You are under the false impression than anyone ever said otherwise or that this means anything regarding our discussion.

Restricting voluntary trade always destroys wealth. Period. It is called deadweight loss. You get some benefits that way, but you lose the benefits you would get by trading with other countries. Again, you are trying to erase over 2 centuries of economic research. This is literally what Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations about. Keep attacking the foundations of capitalism, but it still stands.

 

... and when that recession hits, you can bet the forum right wingers will attribute that to Obama and/or the rest of the Democrats

 

Well, this is one economic right winger who won't. I'll first consider what evidence there is that it would have happened regardless of executive policy. But Trump's protectionist BS will likely make any existing problem worse, even if it isn't the initial trigger.

 

Now you're conflating individual division of labor with a discussion about international trade.
A bit disingenuous.

 

You are the one who claimed that only individuals trade, not counties. Why are you backtracking now? How is an individual trading with an individual in another country somehow maaaaaagically no longer trade? I away your explanation.

 

How do you propose the US handle its problems in the Rust Belt region?

Just let it be and say there will be winners and losers? While everyone crowds into the overpriced cities on the coasts looking for jobs.

Middle America has been getting hollowed out, geographically.

 

Since the US average wage is considerably higher than the average wage in China, practically any job in the US will earn your "son" more than it will cost to employ that person in China to do the work.

 

I propose we don't attack our own economy overall in order to try to protect a special interest group. Same as I've felt every other time this has come up. I don't support sacrificing more overall jobs in order to protect a smaller number of Rust Belt jobs.

 

Your criticism is illogical.

 

You response fails to grasp the quote you just quoted. Please try again.

 

The trade hasn't been creating many jobs in America.

That's what you don't get.

It has to do with the types of things China wants from the US.

 

This mentality reflects a failure to grasp econ 101, as I've previously explained. Trade is win-win. That's why people trade. They wouldn't trade otherwise.

 

Why don't you give it a little more thought.

 

Econ 101 seems to be all you understand.

Not meant as an insult.

There's much more to this than just the concept of comparative advantage taught in first year economics courses.

 

Every economists who has studied the subject and anyone capable of passing econ 101 disagrees. Of course trade has been creating jobs in America.

I don't "get" it because it is a complete fantasy that is trying to get me to forget econ 101 without offering any kind of line of reasoning or line of evidence in return.

Trade creates wealth, no matter how much you and Trump want to try to ignore reality and turn it into a zero sum game.