- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trade deficit comes in better than expectations
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:34 am to BBONDS25
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:34 am to BBONDS25
quote:
That’s also described in the site I linked you. You aren’t educating anyone. You are learning that you are a classic liberal. Glad you could finally come around.
Exactly. I mean he just removed all doubt (as if there were some left)
0
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The issue with your comment is the assumption that lower trade deficits make America better or that they are a sign of America doing better. Typically large trade deficits are a signal that a country is very wealthy with a high standard of living. The inverse means lower trade deficits or trade surplus indicates the opposite.
I think you are wrong about this. The US ran trade surpluses during its greatest period from 1870 to 1970. Those years fully encapsulated America’s rise to the greatest nation on earth with the highest living standards.
Trade deficits are not proportional to wealth at all. So far they have been proportional to industrialization. When Britain industrialized, the US (primarily agrarian) ran persistent trade deficits to them. Then America industrialized and ran persistent trade surpluses for the next hundred years. Then America began to de-industrialize when Japan took over the automobile and steel industries. That, and oil importing, put America back into a trade deficit.
All during the periods, from 1870 until today, of trade surplus and deficit, American per capita wealth has been growing rapidly. So I don’t see how you can draw the conclusion that trade deficits are indicative of wealth.
This post was edited on 12/11/25 at 10:36 am
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:35 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Good. Most modern conservatives have called themselves "classically liberal."
Glad you finally admit to being a liberal.
what a joke you are. Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:35 am to RollTide4547
quote:
But Tariffs are going to destroy us.
And the markets are going to crash!
I just lament the thought that a continuation of the previous trade deals could have driven my 401K above the 25% returns I've earned since 1/21/2025.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:35 am to BCreed1
quote:
Wages up. Prices flat. Tax revenue is at all time high because consumer spending is up. Plus tariffs funding the US Gov in part. Plus jobs pouring in
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:36 am to BBONDS25
quote:
You’re a strange dude.
And youre very predictable. Unknowledgeable, so you constantly attack the source.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:36 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:EXACTLY my point. I'm not seeing the increases in purchase price that YOU claim tariffs are causing. You said the tariffs are a tax on Americans. I'm saying that a tax (caused by a gov't increase or tariffs) would cause the purchase prices to increase and I'm not seeing them. It's been 8 months since you first started crowing about tariffs. Show me the items with increase.
So do tariffs, which are taxes
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:36 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Glad you finally admit to being a liberal
"classic"
Beats being a working class progressive.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:37 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
so you constantly attack the source.
Then quit using liberal sources.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:39 am to frogtown
quote:
Show me where Friedman advocated for open borders. This post doesn't do it.
Stop avoiding it. You are better than Roger. I have seen it. Here you have Friedman understanding some realities:
He also stated that if government intervention in trade is unavoidable, a tariff is less harmful than a quota because it at least generates revenue for the government and provides an incentive for foreign producers to offer lower prices.
You went all around the world to still find out a truth. On paper, we can make anything sound great. But then there is reality. Milton understood that.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:40 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
quote:
THERE IT IS. Marked. And will be shown every time you post.
Good. Most modern conservatives have called themselves "classically liberal."
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:40 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
classic
Yep. A classic liberal. Explains your “tax the rich” mantra. Jealousy and envy are core liberal traits.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:42 am to BBONDS25
He’s a big death tax guy
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:42 am to BCreed1
quote:
Stop avoiding it. You are better than Roger. I have seen it. Here you have Friedman understanding some realities:
He also stated that if government intervention in trade is unavoidable, a tariff is less harmful than a quota because it at least generates revenue for the government and provides an incentive for foreign producers to offer lower prices.
You went all around the world to still find out a truth. On paper, we can make anything sound great. But then there is reality. Milton understood that.
I want you to quit lying. Again show me where Friedman openly advocated for open borders.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:43 am to NashvilleTider
quote:
June of 2020
Hmm, I wonder what was going on in June of 2020 that could have possibly slowed down the trade deficit? This isn't the good news you think it is.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:43 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Yep. A classic liberal.
=/= social liberal.
Classic liberals are laissez-faire, social liberals are statitsts.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:45 am to jlnoles79
quote:
jlnoles79
What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Nothing and you know that. Just your attempt to change the conversation.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:47 am to RollTide4547
quote:since soybeans and tariffs seem to be a hot topic today:
EXACTLY my point. I'm not seeing the increases in purchase price that YOU claim tariffs are causing. You said the tariffs are a tax on Americans. I'm saying that a tax (caused by a gov't increase or tariffs) would cause the purchase prices to increase and I'm not seeing them. It's been 8 months since you first started crowing about tariffs. Show me the items with increase.
Soybean futures
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:48 am to frogtown
quote:
I want you to quit lying.
I'm not lying. Maybe you need to research it, but I'm not derailing a thread for you to pull a roger.
quote:
He also stated that if government intervention in trade is unavoidable, a tariff is less harmful than a quota because it at least generates revenue for the government and provides an incentive for foreign producers to offer lower prices.
You went all around the world to still find out a truth. On paper, we can make anything sound great. But then there is reality. Milton understood that.
Stay on topic.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:48 am to BCreed1
quote:
What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
You listed a bunch of what you thought were good things about the economy.
He is just telling you that those things come from Trump's hyper Keynesian economics.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News