Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jerome who wrote (6070)

8/14/2018 3:42:20 PM

From: PJr

Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 26474

"Pjr.....what happens when those countries with which we have a trade surplus demand trade equality?"

By all means, give it to them! When we have hundreds of billions in recurring trade deficits, why would I not favor conceding a few profitable trading agreements for a collective set of trade agreements that result in a financially "break even" cumulative trade deficit? I think you'd agree that it's never difficult for either of us to be philanthropic when there is a greater financial benefit for us in doing so. In other words, I certainly wouldn't need to be asked twice if I'd agree to forfeiting from my checking account $500 additional dollars per month to another bank that has my car loan if a third bank that holds my mortgage reduced my monthly payment to them to near zero or eliminated completely the far larger amount that they pull from my checking account!

I'm not suggesting that there will be no discomfort by our attempt to convince other countries that it's time to give up their lopsided sweetheart deals. Of course they won’t be happy. They KNOW very well they're riding the gravy train. Why would they want to agree to equitable trade when we have made it so lucrative for them for decades? If the situation was reversed, I wouldn't want Trump to be talking about it either … but we're on the short end of this stick. Should we continue to be the martyr that spares these other countries from unhappiness by overpaying by BILLIONS our share of the cost of doing business with them? Perhaps I overlook the obvious but it confuses me that a government that represents us (as opposed to being a business enterprise trying to make a profit) would want to make us shell out hundreds of billions of dollars each year to enable other governments who don’t represent us to maintain their sweetheart deals.

The only advantage to the status quo is that it’s much easier for my simple mind to grasp why we have such massive debt which contributes to the problem of not being able to provide for our own! In this upside down world, maybe that's the goal. The issue is probably more valuable than the solution since it provides such great material for the campaign trail! <G>

I'm pretty sure these things don't get resolved on SI forums. It’s just nice to hear other opinions. Thanks for the discussion. My apologies, Kirk, if I've deviated from the forum's purpose.

PJr