Thread: Understanding Trade Deficits

Originally Posted by MW

Obviously you're seeing something I don't because I don't see a response from me on this thread signaling I support or don't support.

And that's what I noted! You posted two articles advocating an agenda that trade deficits are not a bad thing. You added no comments endorsing or divorcing you position from that agenda. So I conclude you agree with those articles!

Originally Posted by MW

If you don't support the viewpoint represented in any article posted, please share your opposing viewpoint.

I did!

Originally Posted by MW

It doesn't serve a purpose to direct disparaging comments toward the messenger.

SO IT IS THE MESSAGE THAT YOU WISH TO CONVEY!

Originally Posted by MW

When I share my own opinion, it'll come directly from me, not a posted article written by someone else.

When you post two articles promoting the same agenda, and not two articles showing opposing viewpoints, I assume those articles are pushing an agenda you endorse. You protest being associated with such viewpoints, yet you do not note what you disagree with them about!

Originally Posted by MW

Economists to Trump: It’s Not the Trade Deficit, Stupid

MW is sure buying into the "economist's" agenda!

Originally Posted by jtdc

MW is sure buying into the "economist's" agenda!

You and Judy are two peas in a pod.

Originally Posted by MW

IMO, this article makes a lot of sense.

Wow! What a revelation! You re-quote what you already quoted, then agree with yourself. Then you object to my concluding that you agree with the agenda being pushed.

Like from the article you endorse:

Consider that GM sold more cars in China than in the U.S. last year. GM’s profit from those cars represent a transfer of wealth from China to the U.S. Similarly, corporations such as Starbucks, McDonald’s, KFC and numerous U.S. retail stores have tens of thousands of outlets all over the world. Profits from all such activities are ignored in the trade deficit numbers.

A good piece of misinformation that MW buys hook, line, and sinker!

New York Post:
General Motors produces the Buick Envision exclusively at a factory in Shanghai, mainly for the Chinese market. About 32,000 of the vehicles, which sell at a base price of $34,065, have been sold in the US since the company introduced the compact SUV to the US market last summer.

So those vehicles are made by Chinese, the profits go to China, and the majority of cars are sold to Chinese! Very little of the profits go to those in the U.S.

The same for the other companies listed. Starbucks. KFC and those numerous other stores are manned by people in those countries, and often gets supplies from other than the U.S. It is not the same as manufacturing the product in the U.S. them exporting to for sale in other countries.

But that is the diversion these "economists" use to convince MW that trade deficits are a good thing!

jtdc wrote (excerpt):

When you post two articles promoting the same agenda, and not two articles showing opposing viewpoints, I assume those articles are pushing an agenda you endorse. You protest being associated with such viewpoints, yet you do not note what you disagree with them about!

So are you suggesting I can only post articles on ALIPAC that I support? Since you're a relatively new poster here, I'm going to just chalk such comments up to lack of understanding on how things work around here.

I and others on here frequently post articles we agree with and articles we don't agree with. Either way, we don't always feel the need to justify exactly why we post something. It is your job as the reader to determine whether you agree with it or not. If you don't agree with it, then make your argument against the article, not the person posting it. Oh, and never assume someone posting an article believes verbatim what's in the article or even supports the authors position.

Have you ever considered the possibility that not everyone thinks like you? Following you logic that every article should only conform to what you like or approve of would make this site rather boring, don't you think? Just saying ....

Originally Posted by MW

You and Judy are two peas in a pod.

On this one, apparently so!

Originally Posted by jtdc

Wow! What a revelation! You re-quote what you already quoted, then agree with yourself. Then you object to my concluding that you agree with the agenda being pushed.

Like from the article you endorse:A good piece of misinformation that MW buys hook, line, and sinker! So those vehicles are made by Chinese, the profits go to China, and the majority of cars are sold to Chinese! Very little of the profits go to those in the U.S.

The same for the other companies listed. Starbucks. KFC and those numerous other stores are manned by people in those countries, and often gets supplies from other than the U.S. It is not the same as manufacturing the product in the U.S. them exporting to for sale in other countries.

But that is the diversion these "economists" use to convince MW that trade deficits are a good thing!

Okay, you're just attempting to bait a ridiculous argument now. Well, I'm not biting.

Originally Posted by MW

So are you suggesting I can only post articles on ALIPAC that I support?

No!

Originally Posted by MW

I and others on here frequently post articles we agree with and articles we don't agree with.

Many, like Judy, will add a comment agreeing or disagreeing with the article they posted. Sometimes they post an article to show how absurd the writer is. But unlike you, they let it be known that they don't agree with the author of the article.

Originally Posted by MW

It is your job as the reader to determine whether you agree with it or not. If you don't agree with it, then make your argument against the article, not the person posting it.

When it appears you are pushing an agenda, I will accuse you of such!

Originally Posted by MW

Have you ever considered the possibility that not everyone thinks like you?

Wow! you mean I always agree with you, or I always agree with Judy? Confusing since you don't always agree with each other.

Originally Posted by MW

Following you logic that every article should only conform to what you like or approve of

Originally Posted by MW

Okay, you're just attempting to bait a ridiculous argument now. Well, I'm not biting.

Couldn't think of a defense for it, huh?

Originally Posted by jtdc

Couldn't think of a defense for it, huh?

No, just view your posting as intentionally baiting me into an argument over petty opinions of no real substance.

For example:

Many, like Judy, will add a comment agreeing or disagreeing with the article they posted. Sometimes they post an article to show how absurd the writer is. But unlike you, they let it be known that they don't agree with the author of the article.

Sorry for not meeting jtdc's standards on my posting techniques. Striving to be like Judy is not one of my goals in life. Judy's Judy and I'm me, but thanks for caring enough to tell me 'how' I should act and post.