Bill Clinton on the Trail

[Balta1701]

between 1989 and 2003 the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion because of oil? please explain how that works, northside72.

Honestly, yes, it is because of oil. How do you think those planes and boats make their way across the Pacific?

[mr_genius]

I said nothing of the sort - I wasn't just talking about China. Were we only discussing China?

 

And you are assuming that increase, in China, was due to changed trade policies. Instead, I'd suggest, the economic realities of massively increased production moving to China, changes in currencies, and various other factors all played major parts as well.

 

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2007

 

-237,477,000,000 is the deficit with China. any talks of a trade deficit needs to address that.

 

As far as the second point, the economic realities of were you are talking about had a lot to do with the WTO and the China trade deals. Both the currency issue and manufacturing production increases are a direct result.

 

so in your opinion this is a large trade deficit that, in your opinion, coincidentally sky rocked after the WTO and Chinese trade deals.

 

I think I need to just end my hijacking of this thread

 

[mr_genius]

Honestly, yes, it is because of oil. How do you think those planes and boats make their way across the Pacific?

 

of course... no oil = no shipping of goods. silly me. what if they were solar powered ships, how would that change anything? also, oil has been around well before the trade deficit with china.

 

/leaves thread for good this time

Edited January 24, 2008 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

of course... no oil = no shipping of goods. silly me. what if they were solar powered ships, how would that change anything? also, oil has been around well before the trade deficit with china. thats really a stretch of a link.

Solar powered ships would clearly make the world a better place. And it would significantly improve the quality of the air I'm breathing out here.

 

And that remark was mostly in jest, although the grain of truth in it was obvious.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2007

 

-237,477,000,000 is the deficit with China. any talks of a trade deficit needs to address that.

 

As far as the second point, the economic realities of were you are talking about had a lot to do with the WTO and the China trade deals. Both the currency issue and manufacturing production increases are a direct result.

 

so in your opinion this is a large trade deficit that, in your opinion, coincidentally sky rocked after the WTO and Chinese trade deals.

 

I think I need to just end my hijacking of this thread

Dude - look at China. Look at what has happened there in the past few decades. These things that are happening, sending manufacturing to China, is going to happen regardless of trade policy, unless you want the US to become complete isolationists. Its just reality. And trade agreements made to grease the wheels in certain areas are not what made that happen.

 

[southsider2k5]

between 1989 and 2003 the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion because of oil? please explain how that works, northside72.

 

You do realize that NAFTA only included the USA, Mexico and Canada right? China is a whole different story. We have had trade agreements with them back to Rich Nixon.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2007

 

-237,477,000,000 is the deficit with China. any talks of a trade deficit needs to address that.

 

As far as the second point, the economic realities of were you are talking about had a lot to do with the WTO and the China trade deals. Both the currency issue and manufacturing production increases are a direct result.

 

so in your opinion this is a large trade deficit that, in your opinion, coincidentally sky rocked after the WTO and Chinese trade deals.

 

I think I need to just end my hijacking of this thread

 

Quit buying Chinese s***, and start paying twice as much to buy American. Problem solved.

[Texsox]

Quit buying Chinese s***, and start paying twice as much to buy American. Problem solved.

 

I am trying to remember when the Buy American stuff ended. I remember bumper stickers

Hungry? Eat Your Foreign Car back in the 70s and into the 80s, but over all I think we've pretty much ended that campaign.

[iamshack]

Good debate, guys. Interesting stuff in here.

 

I'm going to go work on those solar-powered ships now...

[mr_genius]

You do realize that NAFTA only included the USA, Mexico and Canada right? China is a whole different story. We have had trade agreements with them back to Rich Nixon.

 

new deals with china were signed in the 90's. Chinese trade deals with the WTO. NAFTA stands for north american free trade agreement, China isn't any where near north america. My posts have included the wording "NAFTA and China deals" or "wto, NAFTA, and chinese deals". The word "and" or a comma shows that they are different and used in combination, not that they are the same thing.

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2008 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

new deals with china were signed in the 90's. Chinese trade deals with the WTO. NAFTA stands for north american free trade agreement, China isn't any where near north america. My posts have included the wording "NAFTA and China deals" or "wto, NAFTA, and chinese deals". The word "and" or a comma shows that they are different and used in combination, not that they are the same thing.

 

I understand completely. But if you ask me it is kind of strange for Ron Paul to promote himself as the one true capitialist, while trumpeting the horn of extreme protectionism. Free trade is capitalism as its best. He would actually be hindering our economy by throwing up barriers.

[mr_genius]

I understand completely. But if you ask me it is kind of strange for Ron Paul to promote himself as the one true capitialist, while trumpeting the horn of extreme protectionism. Free trade is capitalism as its best. He would actually be hindering our economy by throwing up barriers.

 

I've always thought Paul was a total free trader, I would imagine he supports the NAFTA and WTO deals. If he doesn't, that would be contradictory to what he professes as sound economic principles. I do know that he opposes running deficits in which we use foreign countries to finance our deficit spending, but I think that would be considered a separate issue.