Obama's trip to India

[BigRob]

That's absurd. People buy things made by foreigners and not things made by US labor, and it doesn't affect employment in the US???

As I mentioned, what do those people we "sell" things to that do not then immediately buy back have as options with their excess dollars?

Additionally, as pointed out, in terms of real dollars, the trade imbalance is not all that large (if you feel it matters at all) and such a small number is not going to have a dramatic impact on an economy the size of ours.

Nope, there's never been a timne like the current era.

The website your source has a graph that shows that the trade deficit decreased in a big way between the middle of 2008 and early 2009... in the middle of a recession..

Now, if you are arguing we need to increase economic activity to decrease the trade deficit... how do you explain that?

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/11/trade-deficit-decreases-in-september.html

 

[Rick]

As I mentioned, what do those people we "sell" things to that do not then immediately buy back have as options with their excess dollars?

That they have dollars to buy things back with doesn't mean they thereby solve the resultant unemployment - eg the chinese use their money to by assets and raw materials, which has a weak effect on employment in the US.

The website your source has a graph that shows that the trade deficit decreased in a big way between the middle of 2008 and early 2009... in the middle of a recession..

That is only because the graph is reckoned in terms of GDP. GDP went up because it includes gigantic government spending - all of it financed with giant national debt.

 

[Hobo1]

Obama comes flying in, gives a speech that is a mile wide but an inch thick, and makes everybody feel warm and toasty.

Just read that speech he gave in India Obama speech to India Parliament..

I can't begin to summarize it because it floats all over the place, but here are a few quips:

And it is my firm belief that the relationship between the United States and India --- bound by our shared interests and our shared values --- will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. This is the partnership I've come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realize together.

What shared values?? To get rich off the US consumer? And why is this a "defiining partnership" of the 21st century? India more important than say Japan or the European Union, or even Brazil?

The whole speech is nothing more than bag of candy that Obama throws to all his crowds - like the Homecoming Queen in a parade. Then his throws out big hugs and kisses in this gem:

That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

That is like a whore promising you the greatest orgasm of your life! Are you going to believe that lie too?

The worst part is Obama could deliver on this promise if he were a true world leader - but he his not. At the end of the trip he got pounded by the G-20 meeting. He is no more going to work hard for India than he is for any of the hollow promises he makes everywhere else in the world.

He is a fraud and and a phony. Everyone knows he is a lightweight and will deliver on none of the glowing promises made in this glowing speech.

He barely made mention of the number one issue facing India today, which is a Pakistan that is crumbling into the hands of terrorists.

He is all talk and no do... time for him to get off the world stage and let the US find a new President that is willing to get his hands dirty.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Obama comes flying in, gives a speech that is a mile wide but an inch thick, and makes everybody feel warm and toasty.

Just read that speech he gave in India Obama speech to India Parliament..

I can't begin to summarize it because it floats all over the place, but here are a few quips:


What shared values?? To get rich off the US consumer? And why is this a "defiining partnership" of the 21st century? India more important than say Japan or the European Union, or even Brazil?

The whole speech is nothing more than bag of candy that Obama throws to all his crowds - like the Homecoming Queen in a parade. Then his throws out big hugs and kisses in this gem:



That is like a whore promising you the greatest orgasm of your life! Are you going to believe that lie too?

The worst part is Obama could deliver on this promise if he were a true world leader - but he his not. At the end of the trip he got pounded by the G-20 meeting. He is no more going to work hard for India than he is for any of the hollow promises he makes everywhere else in the world.

He is a fraud and and a phony. Everyone knows he is a lightweight and will deliver on none of the glowing promises made in this glowing speech.

He barely made mention of the number one issue facing India today, which is a Pakistan that is crumbling into the hands of terrorists.

He is all talk and no do... time for him to get off the world stage and let the US find a new President that is willing to get his hands dirty.

im sure your speech would have gone over well...we are here to open your markets so we can profit, can no we really don't care about you unless it helps us...You share no values with us, only strategic assets we want to use...now please do what we want...by the way, there is not a shot in hell you get a permanent seat on the security council..

its also funny you think policy is made in the speech....not behind doors with the leaders people working together, and the leaders of both doing the show for there people and the outside world...

 

[BigRob]

What shared values?? To get rich off the US consumer? And why is this a "defiining partnership" of the 21st century? India more important than say Japan or the European Union, or even Brazil?

How about "shared values" like Democracy... rule of law...etc..

Here is an excerpt from President Bush's 2006 National Security Strategy:

"India is a great democracy, and our shared values are the foundation of our good relations.

We have made great strides in transforming America’s relationship with India, a major power that shares our commitment to freedom, democracy, and rule of law. In July 2005, we signed a bold agreement – a roadmap to realize the meaningful cooperation that had eluded our two nations for decades. India now is poised to shoulder global obligations in cooperation with the United States in a way befitting a major power."

The language President Obama used is not new, and is the correct wording for what he is trying to say.

Additionally, in terms of "defining partnership", you can have more than one (as the President said) and yes, the relationship between the US and India is going to be just as important, if not more, then the one with the EU or Brazil.

The whole speech is nothing more than bag of candy that Obama throws to all his crowds - like the Homecoming Queen in a parade. Then his throws out big hugs and kisses in this gem:

That is what the President needs to do in this situation, and he did a decent job of it. You don't go into India and blow your chance by verbally attacking them.

That is like a whore promising you the greatest orgasm of your life! Are you going to believe that lie too?

Even from a standpoint of not wanting to expand the Security Council, it makes sense to offer tacit support... it will never happen, so why not get some benefits by saying "hey, we support your bid"?

The worst part is Obama could deliver on this promise if he were a true world leader - but he his not. At the end of the trip he got pounded by the G-20 meeting. He is no more going to work hard for India than he is for any of the hollow promises he makes everywhere else in the world.

Of course he is not going to "work hard for India", he is going to work hard for American interests in India... which is what he should be doing.

He is a fraud and and a phony. Everyone knows he is a lightweight and will deliver on none of the glowing promises made in this glowing speech.

He barely made mention of the number one issue facing India today, which is a Pakistan that is crumbling into the hands of terrorists.

He is all talk and no do... time for him to get off the world stage and let the US find a new President that is willing to get his hands dirty.

Read his national security strategy, you will find mention of Pakistan.. that is obviously an important issue in India, but it is also not what his trip was about.

It is obvious you don't like the President, I don't care for most of what he does either, but he did not do much wrong on his India trip in my opinion.

 

[BigRob]

That they have dollars to buy things back with doesn't mean they thereby solve the resultant unemployment - eg the chinese use their money to by assets and raw materials, which has a weak effect on employment in the US.

Every dollar (using China as an example here) in Chinese hands will either be taken out of circulation, making the rest of the money in circulation more valuable, or will be directed back to the US economy.

If you want to argue that a trade imbalance of roughly $400 billion (2009), of which over half was petroleum related, is somehow directly responsible for much higher unemployment in any significant manner, then you have a long way to go to make your case.

That is only because the graph is reckoned in terms of GDP. GDP went up because it includes gigantic government spending - all of it financed with giant national debt.

For someone who seems to want the trade imbalance to even out, you should be happy the government is printing money and devaluing the dollar... that makes exports more attractive will even out the trade imbalance. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Rick]

Obama comes flying in, gives a speech that is a mile wide but an inch thick, and makes everybody feel warm and toasty.

Just read that speech he gave in India Obama speech to India Parliament..

I can't begin to summarize it because it floats all over the place, but here are a few quips:


What shared values?? To get rich off the US consumer? And why is this a "defiining partnership" of the 21st century? India more important than say Japan or the European Union, or even Brazil?

The whole speech is nothing more than bag of candy that Obama throws to all his crowds - like the Homecoming Queen in a parade. Then his throws out big hugs and kisses in this gem:



That is like a whore promising you the greatest orgasm of your life! Are you going to believe that lie too?

The worst part is Obama could deliver on this promise if he were a true world leader - but he his not. At the end of the trip he got pounded by the G-20 meeting. He is no more going to work hard for India than he is for any of the hollow promises he makes everywhere else in the world.

He is a fraud and and a phony. Everyone knows he is a lightweight and will deliver on none of the glowing promises made in this glowing speech.

He barely made mention of the number one issue facing India today, which is a Pakistan that is crumbling into the hands of terrorists.

He is all talk and no do... time for him to get off the world stage and let the US find a new President that is willing to get his hands dirty.

Excellent post. Post of the month!

 

[Rick]

Every dollar (using China as an example here) in Chinese hands will either be taken out of circulation, making the rest of the money in circulation more valuable, or will be directed back to the US economy.

In ways that don't reverse the huge unemployment caused by the defict to begin with. The chinese aren't frantic for US products or services. Give it up.

If you want to argue that a trade imbalance of roughly $400 billion (2009), of which over half was petroleum related, is somehow directly responsible for much higher unemployment in any significant manner, then you have a long way to go to make your case.

That half is for oil (if you are correct) has nothing to do with the effect in the US. That's $400 billion that won't go to investment of plant and equipment and research and hence jobs in the US.

For someone who seems to want the trade imbalance to even out, you should be happy the government is printing money and devaluing the dollar... that makes exports more attractive will even out the trade imbalance. You cannot have it both ways.

Again puting words into my mouth, and I don't "want it both ways". Printing dollars is foolish - it will bring back high interest rates and inflation - both job killers. And a devalued dollar doesn't necessarily increase exports - with cutbacks in the welfare state in europe, nobody has money to buy, and chinese don't want our products.

 

[BigRob]

In ways that don't reverse the huge unemployment caused by the defict to begin with.

So, your assertion is that investing in the US does nothing to help the economy or employment? Additionally, you have yet to show any logical connection that bilateral trade deficits (or frankly the current overall trade deficit) have any significant impact on US employment rates.

The chinese aren't frantic for US products or services. Give it up.

They don't have to be... it is irrelevant if they are or are not.. that is the how a global trading system works.

That half is for oil (if you are correct) has nothing to do with the effect in the US. That's $400 billion that won't go to investment of plant and equipment and research and hence jobs in the US.

YES IT WILL!! That is the whole point... when there is a trade imbalance, a country has an excess of dollars which will ultimately be invested back in the United States. (or taken out of circulation) You seem to be unable to grasp this simple point. In either scenario, and those are the only two scenarios possible for someone with an excess of dollars, we are better off.

Let me ask you this... would we be better off to cancel all imports and exports and thereby end the "trade imbalance"?

Again puting words into my mouth, and I don't "want it both ways". Printing dollars is foolish - it will bring back high interest rates and inflation - both job killers. And a devalued dollar doesn't necessarily increase exports - with cutbacks in the welfare state in europe, nobody has money to buy, and chinese don't want our products.

I am not "putting words into your mouth", I am just making the logical connections from your statements.

Take a look at these stats from the EU:

Trade in goods

* EU good exports to the US in 2009: €204.4 billion
* EU goods imports from the US in 2009: €159.8 billion

Trade in services

* EU services exports to the US 2009: €119.4 billion
* EU services imports from the US in 2009: €127.0 billion

Foreign Direct Investment

* EU investment flows to the US in 2008: €121.4 billion
* US investment flows to the EU in 2008: €50.5 billion

(Notice that there is a "trade imbalance" here in which the the US exports less to Europe that they export to us.. then take a look at the investment numbers (2008 was the stats they had) and look at the large difference in how much investment (read excess cash from the trade imbalance) is being returned to the US in the form of investment)

This is a real world example of the markets acting exactly as I said they would...

 

[Rick]

So, your assertion is that investing in the US does nothing to help the economy or employment?

There you go again, debating yourself. I said no such thing.

Additionally, you have yet to show any logical connection that bilateral trade deficits (or frankly the current overall trade deficit) have any significant impact on US employment rates.

Yes I did - you're so busy debating yourself, it didn't register with you.

They don't have to be... it is irrelevant if they are or are not.. that is the how a global trading system works.

How it works is one side sells everything, the other side sells little, and all will be well? Uh.....er........Hokay.

YES IT WILL!! That is the whole point... when there is a trade imbalance, a country has an excess of dollars which will ultimately be invested back in the United States.

You seem unable to grasp that what they spend their money for is assets. Also, since the dollar is the de facto world currency, it doesn't necessarily ultimately come back to the US.

Let me ask you this... would we be better off to cancel all imports and exports and thereby end the "trade imbalance"?

No. Next stupid question?

Take a look at these stats from the EU:

Trade in goods

* EU good exports to the US in 2009: €204.4 billion
* EU goods imports from the US in 2009: €159.8 billion

Trade in services

* EU services exports to the US 2009: €119.4 billion
* EU services imports from the US in 2009: €127.0 billion

Foreign Direct Investment

* EU investment flows to the US in 2008: €121.4 billion
* US investment flows to the EU in 2008: €50.5 billion

So what?

v]

 

[BigRob]

There you go again, debating yourself. I said no such thing.

You said that exact thing, because excess cash created from a trade imbalance comes back the US... you say trade imbalances are a bad thing, and therefore by extension their effects are bad...

Yes I did - you're so busy debating yourself, it didn't register with you.

It is almost comical how wrong you are... except then I realize that people like you go out and vote...

Let's review your "evidence."

1) You post a graph of a meaningless snapshot of a small area of bilateral trade which has no relevance to the overall trade imbalance, and you make no connections (except maybe in your head) to how that effects domestic unemployment.

2) Your next graph (which you apparently failed to read) shows that as a percentage of GDP, the overall trade imbalance has been decreasing since the middle of the decade, and yet domestic unemployment has increased dramatically over that time.

Since your claim is that larger trade imbalances create higher unemployment.. how do you explain (your own graph mind you) that shows decreasing overall trade imbalances while unemployment has been rising?

When I ask you these questions before.. your responses vary from "stop debating yourself" to "China doesn't want to buy from us." Certainly a compelling argument. I imagine you would make your teachers proud.

How it works is one side sells everything, the other side sells little, and all will be well? Uh.....er........Hokay.

You miss the entire concept of international trade with this whole "one side" comment. There is no "one side."

You seem unable to grasp that what they spend their money for is assets.

You seem to unable to grasp that if they are buying those assets elsewhere, they must first exchange their currency, which presents the same set of options that I already stated to whoever exchanges it with them.

Also, since the dollar is the de facto world currency, it doesn't necessarily ultimately come back to the US.

Not all of it will.. I never disputed that.. but the majority of it does ultimately end up back in the US. Even if they find someone outside the US to take dollars, whoever took those dollars then has the same option, and the cycle repeats.

No. Next stupid question?

It is not a stupid question.. your position is that trade imbalances breed unemployment... so logically under your position, no trade whatsoever (and by extension no trade imbalance) would create jobs.

So what?

This about sums of the absurdity of even responding to you. A real world example of the market doing exactly what I said and you respond "so what."

Did you not bother to look at the numbers? Let me spell them out again...

Those numbers show a trade imbalance with Europe...My argument all along is that the excess dollars that leave in Europe will find their way back here.. Looking at the investment flows from the EU to the US, you will they are drastically higher than from the US to the EU... why do you suppose that is? Could it be just as I argued all along? Excess dollars finding their way back the American economy?

I will probably not waste any more time responding to you on this topic as you clearly have no interest in any form of logical intellectual conversation.

 

[Rick]

Enough.

Your conception of debate is to claim I didn't say what I said, and arguing against straw men I didn't say by putting words in my mouth, making numerous BIG assertions unsupported by facts, and brushing away facts when they are presented by me.

The US has a huge trade deficit with the chinese, finanaced by borrowing from the chinese and creating titantic national debt, but no problem, don't worry, be happy.


Hokaaayyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[BigRob]

Enough.

Your conception of debate is to claim I didn't say what I said, and arguing against straw men I didn't say by putting words in my mouth, making numerous BIG assertions unsupported by facts, and brushing away facts when they are presented by me.

The US has a huge trade deficit with the chinese, finanaced by borrowing from the chinese and creating titantic national debt, but no problem, don't worry, be happy.


Hokaaayyyyyyyyyyyy

If you are unable to look past a talking point at actual economic reality (which I showed you in great detail twice now and you ignored) then so be it.

Like I said, would be comical... except then I realize people like you vote.

 

[Rick]

If you are unable to look past a talking point at actual economic reality (which I showed you in great detail twice now and you ignored) then so be it.

Like I said, would be comical... except then I realize people like you vote.

You're having a conversation which exists only in your own head - and there's nothing comical about THAT.

 

[BigRob]

You're having a conversation which exists only in your own head - and there's nothing comical about THAT.

You've got me all figured out!