Comments on: Quick take on today’s US trade data

By: Brad Setser: Follow the Money » Blog Archive » Looking back at 08; thinking about 09

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:34:37 +0000

[...] What happens to the United States non-oil trade deficit? It was improving quite rapidly for most of the past two years, though a rising oil import bill [...]

By: ReformerRay

ReformerRay — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:01:53 +0000

Upon further review –
1. I am guilty as charged to taking up too much space on this post.
2. My topic, the need to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and a way to do so, grows logically out of Brad’s discussion.
3. No need to repeat myself on any additional posts of Brad’s.
4. I will speak up on other posts that introduce my topic.
5. I appreciate the opportunity provided by Brad and others, especially Twofish.

By: Euraussian

Euraussian — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:13:15 +0000

Reformer Ray,

May I draw your attention to the Welcome Relief and Good Intentions Act of 2009?

By: ReformerRay

ReformerRay — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:32:15 +0000

Ian Hurst:

You are right.

By: Ian Hurst

Ian Hurst — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:36:34 +0000

ReformerRay: Please, please, ignore my prolixus if possible. I really do want to know what is wrong with my ideas. Alas, I will not find out if no one reads them.

Blogs are free. Start your own and get feedback there. I don’t speak for Brad, but it’s my opinion that the comments section on *his* blog is for feedback on *his* ideas – and that’s why *I’m* here.

By: ReformerRay

ReformerRay — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:03:21 +0000

Ian Hurst responds:
ReformerRay is making the comments section unreadable. Eight comments from any one person without interruption, no matter what the content, is too much.
Please stay concise, Ray, and stop overwhelming everyone

Good advice. I would like to comply. My problem is I get excited by the prospect of having my ideas critiqued. I have been working alone, without feedback, for years. I do so much appreciate the comments of Twofish and others.

Please, please, ignore my prolixus if possible. I really do want to know what is wrong with my ideas. Alas, I will not find out if no one reads them.

I have had my say. No more interruptions from me UNLESS SOMEONE LIKE TWOFISH PRESENTS ME WITH AN GOOD CHALLENGE.

By: ReformerRay

ReformerRay — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:50:22 +0000

Addemdum: The reduction of 410 billion dollars of impors (using 2007 figures) would be 21% of all U.S. goods imports in 2007. The reduction of the trade surplus China has with the U.S. should be more than 21% because the intent is to get all the reduction from the 5 nations that haave the largest trade surplus with the U.S.

By: ReformerRay

ReformerRay — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:41:38 +0000

Reformer
Is it possible to state very clearly how people will benefit exactly from doing away with Chinese imports, for instance. And how exactly does that relate to the current crisis?

First, I don’t know how it would relate to the current crisis. I haven’t thought about that.

second, I do not propose to eliminate all goods imports. I would hope to reduce goods imports by 50% in 3 years.

The benefits to residents of the U.S. will come in the additional employment and profits created by the additional domestic output required to make up for absent imports.

Also, 410 billion dollars will be retained inside the U.S.

We can estimate the probably size of the benefits to employment and profits but that would take a bit more work.

By: Ian Hurst

Ian Hurst — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:28:34 +0000

ReformerRay is making the comments section unreadable. Eight comments from any one person without interruption, no matter what the content, is too much.

Please stay concise, Ray, and stop overwhelming everyone.

By: Observer

Observer — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:00:18 +0000

Useful Analysis,

The facts and arguments that you have presented do not contradict with my argument. Winslow Wheeler made the argument that the military budget has not been properly allocated to produce the right kinds of systems or sub-systems that best meet the rigors of today’s battlefield. Nowhere did he say that we lacked the knowledge required in material and electric science to produce the best systems in the world.

It is highly counter-intuitive to say that foreigners are undermining our advantage in the cutting-edge fields when they are in fact funding our research and higher education. It is equally counter-intutitive to blame the foreigners for the lack of commercialization of our cutting-edge knowledge when we are the ones who forbid such activities.