@Pantalaimon < wonder where this new lefty political activist come from, lol another turd shit out by the Biden Crime Family? idiot cites article from NPR the very pollutant fake news that is funded by tax dollars because it can't make it on it's own. 1. Misinterpretation of Trade Deficits The article and many critics wrongly frame Trump's perspective as a lack of understanding, but it’s actually a difference in approach. Trump views trade deficits through the lens of economic strength and sovereignty, prioritizing domestic manufacturing, job creation, and economic resilience. While traditional economists may argue that trade deficits aren’t inherently bad, Trump's policies are rooted in enhancing domestic production and reducing dependency on foreign nations, especially adversaries like China. 2. Economic Sovereignty and National Security Eliminating trade deficits can strengthen economic sovereignty. Relying on foreign nations for essential goods—especially strategic goods like technology, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing components—can be dangerous. Trump's approach seeks to rebuild industrial capacity within the United States to enhance both economic security and national security. Critics conveniently ignore the national security implications of outsourcing crucial industries. 3. Economic Growth Through Manufacturing Critics argue that trade deficits are acceptable because they reflect consumer demand. But Trump’s point is that these deficits often result from unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, and market imbalances. By encouraging companies to relocate manufacturing to the U.S., Trump aims to boost domestic employment and create a stronger industrial base. This also reduces vulnerabilities in global supply chains, which was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. 4. Reciprocal Tariffs Aren’t New or Unproven Reciprocal tariffs are not some bizarre, unprecedented concept. They are a negotiation tool used to address trade imbalances and force fairer trade agreements. Several administrations before Trump have used tariffs as leverage, but Trump was willing to apply them on a broader scale to secure better deals. His approach is about negotiation power, not simplistic economic misunderstanding. 5. Critics Ignore the Successes of Trump’s Trade Policies While the article cherry-picks criticisms, it conveniently omits the successes of Trump's trade policies, such as renegotiating NAFTA into the USMCA, which has been praised for its better protections for American workers and improved conditions for trade. Additionally, many companies did begin reshoring their manufacturing operations during Trump’s presidency, proving his strategy was at least partially effective. 6. Biased Sources and Personal Attacks The article’s reliance on personal insults and biased sources undermines its credibility. Economists and analysts often disagree, but resorting to name-calling instead of addressing the substance of Trump's policies suggests a lack of serious engagement with his arguments. Simply calling Trump an "ignoramus" does not constitute a valid counter-argument. 7. China’s Manipulation and Economic Warfare Trump’s emphasis on China’s trade surplus is not just economic posturing; it’s addressing a real issue. China has engaged in currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and unfair subsidies to gain an economic edge. Trump’s aggressive stance aimed to counteract these practices rather than passively accept them.
who is Chang - maybe a Chinese that is getting a tariff on his ass? no actually guess what a reporter for NPR the radical left news supported by tax dollars - that funding is being pulled from by the great president. 1. Mischaracterization of Trade Deficits Furman’s explanation of trade deficits as merely paying more for imports than receiving for exports is an oversimplification that ignores strategic concerns. Trade deficits are not just numerical imbalances; they reflect economic dependency. The more the U.S. imports essential goods from other countries, especially adversaries like China, the more vulnerable it becomes. Trump's position focuses on ensuring economic independence and security, particularly in critical industries. 2. National Security and Economic Sovereignty Furman completely overlooks the national security implications of running persistent trade deficits. When the U.S. outsources critical manufacturing to foreign nations, especially hostile ones, it becomes reliant on them for essential goods and technologies. Trump’s policy aims to restore and bolster American manufacturing capabilities, which is crucial for maintaining technological leadership and economic resilience. 3. Misleading Comparison of Tariff Policies Furman compares U.S. tariffs to those of countries like North Korea and Venezuela to suggest higher tariffs are inherently negative. This is a classic false equivalence. The U.S. is not trying to emulate economically isolated regimes. Rather, it is leveraging tariffs to correct unfair trade practices, boost domestic industries, and counteract subsidies and protectionism from countries like China. 4. Ignoring Asymmetrical Tariffs Furman glosses over the fact that countries like China and India often impose significantly higher tariffs on American goods than the U.S. imposes on theirs. The fact that American tariffs are only 1% while China’s are 6% is not a justification for maintaining the status quo; it’s a glaring inequity that Trump’s reciprocal tariffs aim to address. 5. Underestimating Manufacturing Decline Furman’s argument that the U.S. produces more than ever but with fewer workers due to productivity growth misses the point. Productivity increases are not the sole reason for job losses. Outsourcing manufacturing to low-wage countries with unfair trade advantages has decimated American industrial jobs. Trump’s tariffs aim to bring these jobs back by making domestic manufacturing more competitive. 6. Selective Argument About Goods Not Produced in the U.S. Furman criticizes Trump’s tariffs on products like bananas, coffee, and avocados. But this criticism is irrelevant to the broader goal. The purpose of tariffs is not to target tropical agricultural goods but to address unfair practices in high-value sectors like technology, steel, and automotive manufacturing. The argument is a red herring designed to mislead rather than address the core issues. 7. False Dichotomy of Low-Wage vs. High-Wage Jobs Furman presents a false choice between making high-value products like airplanes and lower-value items like shoes. Trump’s approach aims to revitalize a broad range of manufacturing sectors, not just one or the other. Protecting domestic industries through tariffs can stimulate growth across the entire economy, fostering a more diverse and resilient industrial base. 8. Dismissal of Supply Chain Resilience Furman’s claim that tariffs disrupt global supply chains ignores their fundamental purpose: to rebuild and secure domestic supply chains. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of relying on foreign nations for essential goods. Trump’s tariffs aim to mitigate these vulnerabilities by encouraging domestic production. 9. Overemphasis on Short-Term Economic Projections Furman’s emphasis on economic forecasts predicting higher inflation and reduced growth due to tariffs is speculative. Short-term disruptions are inevitable when realigning trade policies, but the long-term benefits of economic independence, job creation, and technological leadership far outweigh temporary discomfort. 10. Ignoring Historical Successes Furman conveniently ignores historical evidence where tariffs and protectionist policies successfully fostered industrial growth. For example, the U.S. itself used tariffs extensively throughout the 19th century to protect its nascent industries, leading to one of the fastest periods of economic growth in history. 11. False Appeal to Authority Furman’s status as a Harvard professor does not automatically make his arguments accurate. The credibility of an argument rests on its merit, not the credentials of the person making it. His dismissal of tariffs as inherently harmful ignores real-world evidence of their effectiveness when applied strategically. Conclusion Furman’s argument is riddled with flawed assumptions, misleading comparisons, and selective reasoning. His dismissal of Trump’s tariffs as harmful ignores the broader objectives of economic sovereignty, national security, supply chain resilience, and industrial revitalization. Trade deficits are not harmless, especially when they result from unfair practices, hostile dependencies, and strategic vulnerabilities. Trump's approach is not about isolationism; it’s about leveling the playing field and ensuring America's long-term economic strength.
It's true that having a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing but having a trade deficit with ALL of the countries that it trades with is concerning. That means you are paying more than what you are spending permanently, basically not making money at all from anybody that you trade with. If you pull up any international trade chart, USA is having trade deficit against EVERY SINGLE country that it trades with. There is not ONE country that USA has trade surplus with. It is true that USA does have trade surplus with many countries that it trades with including China but the surplus is far less than the trade deficit that it's incurring with all of its trading partners. So USA is losing money in international trade with all of the countries. And for all the expenditures that USA needs to incur, USA is incurring debt. In the long run, that's not sustainable. Eventually USA is going to be bankrupt. It's already showing its strains with all of the crumbling of infrastructures and many bankrupt cities. And yet look at its trading partners. Look at all of the infrastructures that China gets to build. It has THREE airports in Beijing with the latest one having automatic parking, in ONE city. WHERE does it get its money? From the sky? Since China doesn't trade with aliens out of space, then it has to come from somewhere and USA is its largest trading partner. And China has the second largest military spending among all the countries in the world, right after United States. Trump was not too far off when he said all the countries were pillaging United States albeit a bit too dramatic but in essence they are all taking from the USA and not giving back as much. The key to international trade is also not to try to have trade surplus against all your trading partners, then you are exploiting and basically pillaging yourself but to have it balanced where everybody makes some money. The concept of international trade based on comparative advantage is supposed to result in both trading partners becoming better off economically not one trading partner getting excessively better off at the expense of the other. And from what he is saying that he is willing to make the trade to break even shows that Trump is willing to aim for balanced trade where USA gets to make some money too, just how balanced and with how many countries, we don't know. So before you scream blue murder, consider the situation from all sides.
What’s with all this donsense? (Donald + nonsense, naturally.) Let’s set the record straight. The claim that the U.S. has a trade deficit with every single country it trades with is flat-out false. The U.S. consistently runs trade surpluses with quite a few countries, including: Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Brazil Singapore Hong Kong Panama Australia Argentina Chile UAE Switzerland And that’s not even counting services, where the U.S. really dominates. The country runs a large global surplus in services, covering things like software, finance, entertainment, higher education, consulting, and licensing. In 2023 alone, the U.S. exported hundreds of billions more in services than it imported. A trade deficit in goods doesn’t mean the U.S. is "losing money" any more than your family is losing money because you buy groceries instead of growing your own. It’s about specialization and comparative advantage, the basic foundation of international trade. The U.S. imports lower-cost manufactured goods and exports high-value services, tech, and capital. Also, because the dollar is the global reserve currency, other countries want to hold U.S. assets. When they sell goods to the U.S., they often reinvest that money right back into American real estate, companies, or Treasury bonds. That’s not being robbed. That’s just how global finance actually works. Sure, there are problems to fix, like neglected infrastructure or economic inequality. But blaming trade as if it's a zero-sum game just misses the point. Balanced trade isn't the holy grail. Mutual benefit is. And the U.S. has been gaining from that system for a long time. So before shouting about how America’s being “pillaged,” maybe look at the full picture instead of just yelling slogans.
If he wrote a prompt bias loaded like this he would have got an output like that. "Write a forceful rebuttal to Jason Furman's anti-tariff stance, defending Trump's tariff policy as essential for economic sovereignty, supply chain resilience, and national strength. Include historical precedent, discredit elite economists, and stress long-term benefits over short-term pain." What gives it away even more is the strategic use of academic-sounding language, the selective historical references (19th century tariffs = golden era trope) and the predictable conclusion that boils down to “Furman bad, Trump good, independence good.” Brown, Mark is has his name for brains.
You want to set the record straight? Fine let's look at the records. It's nice that you came up with these arguments about US having trade deficit and listed all the countries that US has trade surplus and the reinvestment of the sales proceeds from exporting to the US but two things are missing from your argument, numbers and dates. And we will be looking at them to see how your records hold up. First of all, dates. The last time that US had a trade surplus in the goods sector is in 1975, nearly 50 years ago!! And in terms of numbers, last year, the net trade deficit in goods sector including all the trade surpluses is $1.2 trillion https://www.google.com/search?q=How+much+is+US's+trade+surplus+in+total?&oq=How+much+is+US's+trade+surplus+in+total?+&aqs=chrome..69i57.7305j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and the service sector trade surplus is only $280 billion. https://www.google.com/search?q=US's+trade+situation+in+Service&oq=US's+trade+situation+in+Service+&aqs=chrome..69i57.14207j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8, nearly not enough to cover the trade deficit. Taking your example, this is like your family has been spending more than it earns for TWO decades, two generations since your grandfathers of time!! And out of the $1.33 trillion trade deficit, $295 billion is from trading with China alone. In other words, trade deficit with China amounts to almost 25% of the entire trade deficit that US has with all of its trading partners which means if USA is able to balance its trade with China alone, a quarter of its trade deficit with the entire world will be gone!! So now you can see why the tariffs on China has to be so high? And before you cry foul over Trump adding tariffs of 34% on China. Do you know that countries like China have been levying tariffs of 50% especially on pharmaceuticals since it joined WTO?? Yes true the US is able to import cheap inputs for manufacturing but what's the point of importing them cheap when you can't sell them to make a money because your trading partners like China have been adding tariffs for years to make sure people buy local? China has been essentially making China great all these years at the expense of USA. Numbers and dates do not lie. True US' asset market does benefit from the reinvestment of US dollars but it's a double-edged sword. On one hand yes US does seem to enjoy some prosperity from foreign investment but at the same time it also amounts to a bit of sovereignty and existential issue. Do you REALLY want US being owned by foreign countries especially countries that do not have the same value as the USA? What happens when they own so much of USA that it starts to dictate our policies and way of life? Is that something that we are prepared to accept? But then again, fear not, countries like China that runs the biggest trade deficit is not investing nearly as much as its investment in other geopolitical projects such as the One Belt One Road that aims to increase its influence on the rest of the world. Since its inception in 2013, China's cumulative engagement in the Belt Road Initiatives (BRI) has surpassed $1 trillion, encompassing approximately $634 billion in construction contracts and $419 billion in non-financial investments. In 2024, China recorded a peak in BRI engagement with $70.7 billion in construction contracts and about $51 billion in investments. So out of the $291 billion trade deficit, half of it is being invested in the geopolitical projects to increase its sphere of influence in the world against the USA. So much for reinvesting into the US? LOL Yeah you know what's the solution to fix the "neglected infrastructure"? MONEY!!! If we are able to earn from exporting at least as much as we import, we will not need to neglect infrastructure. We are "neglecting" the infrastructure because we have NO MONEY!!! And before we can trade with aliens out of space, international trade is unfortunately a zero-sum game in many ways otherwise why is China screaming blue murder so much when Trump first started to levy tariffs on China during his first term? And why does China engage in so much currency manipulation of its currency RMB and still refuses to let it trade freely in the international currency market like the rest of the currencies? No because it knows, one dollar gained by the USA is one dollar lost to China. True US is gaining but not gaining as much as it should and far less than what countries like China has been gaining and it's time to change that. Pillage Pillage Pillage!!! America is being PILLAGED!!! LOL But seriously though, at the end I don't think Trump is trying to have lopsided trading surplus all around against all trading partners but he is seeking for a more balanced trade with all of its trading partners. And that's fair.
what does balanced trade mean? American workers earn 3 dollars an hour to make Christmas tree lights to export to China? Or China is required to pay their workers 15 dollars/hour to make their goods more expensive?
Most respected economists state that having a trade deficit is expected and is a good thing rather than a bad thing. There are numerous reasons for a trade deficit to exist between two nations trading with one another.
Any respected economists who respect numbers and with his/her heart in the right place would agree with what I posted previously.