Toro

AHAHAHAHAHA! God, I hope he does. Wouldn't that be great! He's a delusional demogogue. Just what the Liberal Party needs. And they called Harper scary.

What in God's name are you talking about?

Apparently, the answer is "yes". I have no opinion about the war, other than I sure hope the Americans pull it off. This is encouraging. http://www.spectator.se/stambord/?p=1113 There are other interesting responses in the polls as well starting on page 37. The report is dated February 23, 2006. If you click on the above link, and you don't get that report, look in the archives here.

We don't know. I tend to believe that it cannot be run indefinitely either, but I may be wrong. I have been so far.

Except that the differential in net investment returns is -$3 billion. (You can find the exact number on the Fed web site.) So, in other words, even though America runs a $725 billion trade deficit, the returns on American assets held by foreigners is only $3 billion more than the foreign investments owned by America. In the grand scheme of things, that ain't a lot. And that's not because of any "God-given right." Rather, that's foreign investors making such a choice. That's very possible. Yup. It seems to be.

This is the major problem. Rather than have this as a 'happenstance', the US is relying on foreign investment as it's 'income', and is increasing spending without raising taxes. Even economic growth in a system like this is partly 'artificial', because you aren't paying the actual cost of what it takes to make it happen (infrastructure, etc), you are deferring payment. Its not income. Its investment. Income is the return you derive on the investment. The problem is that over the past five years, much of this "investment" has come from central banks, primarily the Japanese and Chinese central banks, though to a lesser extent, Taiwan and Korea as well. However, sources of flows changed in 2005 with private investors snapping up corporate debt replacing central bank government debt purchases. Its debatable whether or not this set-up is artificial. One explanation for this scenario is that there is a "savings glut" elsewhere in the world, i.e. there is "too much" saving to make a safe, profitable investment in the domestic economies, and it has found its way to the United States. I don't know if that's true or not - and frankly, I'm skeptical of it - but it may be an explanation. Thus growth would not be artificial. Understand that the trade deficit is different from the fiscal deficit (though they are linked in a way). You can replace the term "trade deficit" with "capital surplus" and be just as correct. However, the only phrases you can replace "fiscal deficit" with are phrases such as "tax shortage" or "overspending". My own belief is that this whole structure has pulled forward consumption from the future, and that economic growth, ceteris paribus, will be slower in the future than it otherwise would have been had it not been for the fiscal deficits and low interest rates.

Unemployment is lower now than it was when free trade was signed.

Really? I guess all these OECD countries are in a major "crisis" since they run trade deficits Mexico USA Australia New Zeland Belgium Czech Rep France Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Poland Portugal Slovakia Spain Turkey UK http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/0/18625402.pdf Of course, this sentiment is silly. America has run a trade deficit since 1980. Since then, the economy has doubled. What plummeting imports? Imports are soaring! http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/trad1205.pdf France's trade deficit hit an all-time high last year too. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e21de402-9a39-11d...00779e2340.html Where's the talk about the end of the Euro as a reserve currency? I haven't got a clue what this means. Growth is going to be 4-5% this quarter. It grew 3.5% in 2005, 4.2% in 2004, and 2.7% in 2003. http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm Dude, what are you talking about? Sterling ceased to be the primary reserve currency after World War II, when Britain lay in ruins and the country was exhausted. As for the Euro making gains, well, according to Grant's Interest Rate Observer, the dollar accounts for 65% of global reserves, a few points lower than 5 years ago. The Euro won't become a serious contender to the dollar until the Euro-area starts growing again, and the countries within the Euro stop undermining their own currency themselves by running deficits greater than 3% of GDP, which France, Germany and Italy are all doing now. (Italy is over 6%.) A mercantilist argument that is not given serious consideration anymore. One reason why Europe and Japan run a trade surplus with America is because they grow slower. America is growing faster, and thus demand is growing faster in America. Therefore, demand is greater for European goods in America than demand for American goods is in Europe. A trade surplus can be, and is often, a sign of economic weakness, not strength (though that doesn't apply to Canada in this case for other reasons). Not necessarily. By definition, America runs a capital account surplus with the rest of the world - it has to, because, as we know from Macro 101, the capital and current accounts must balance. If America is deemed a more desireable place to invest, and more capital flows into America than flows out, that in and of itself will create a trade deficit. However, that doesn't mean a trade deficit is good either. I tend to worry about it more than I let on in this argument. Rather, I wanted to point out the flaws in geoffery's arguments. For a benign view of the trade deficit - one that I do not necessarily subscribe to - read here http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021006G

While the trade deficit is, what $600-700 billion, interestingly enough, net receipts on those investments is something like -$3 billion. (You can find the exact amount on the Federal Reserve web site). Thus, even though America does have this large deficit, income from net foreign investment is about equal.

Gov't Budget Surplus Hits $21B for Jan The federal government ran a $21 billion budget surplus last month, the best January showing in four years, as both spending and tax receipts set records for the month. The Treasury Department said the government spent $209 billion last month, a record amount for January and up 7.9 percent from January Government tax receipts, however, also set a record for the month of $230 billion, up 13.7 percent from January 2005. The faster growth in receipts than in spending pushed the suplus for the month to $21 billion, more than double the $8.6 billion surplus the government recorded in January 2005. It was the biggest January surplus since $43.7 billion in 2002. Link Shady. There's a surplus because this month, government revenue is usually higher than government spending due to timing reasons. Bush's own budget forecast is estimating a $427 billion deficit.

You're a funny guy Sam.

Well, there are a few bright ones.

It's happening now. I've just started reading an interesting book "The World is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman. It describes just how and why this is all going on and the impact it's having on our western economies. It won't be all 'roses' - as the standard of living rises for those in third world countries, it will lower for those in first world countries - a levelling of the playing field, so to speak. I don't agree with Friedman on that. It will certainly lower the standards of living for some, but the evidence so far is that it increases aggregate incomes.

Well, global opinion still favours globalization, or at least its instruments. The composition of the poll It excludes China and most of Saharan Africa, but includes Nigeria, Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania Senegal, Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Indonesia. But first, the bad news. World opinion on economic prospects is mixed. Evaluating the global players NGOs 60% mainly positive v. 12% mainly negative UN 59% v. 16% World Bank 55% v. 18% News media 48% v. 24% IMF 47% v. 21% Global companies 41% v. 26% World Bank Nigeria 83% mainly positive v. 6% mainly negative Kenya 81% v. 5% Tanzania 79% v. 8% Ghana 76% v. 6% Congo 75% v. 6% Senegal 74% v. 6% South Africa 58% v. 5% Zimbabwe 43% v. 19% Indonesia 80% v. 12% Afghanistan 79% v. 7%. India 51% v. 9% Iraq 44% v. 18% Iran 42% v. 21% USA 47% v. 28% Canada 43% v. 28% http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Economy/...s_Jan06_rpt.pdf

Yes it has. Its just that the Corporate controlled media hasn't reported it yet.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122805C

From the Environment Minister of Australia Link

I think he's hilarious and brilliant at satire, and I dont' agree with him very much. However, he helps more than hurts the GOP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> No one shows up to vote.

Here's my projection. Tories 306. Liberals 0. Thank you, and good night.

If I were a betting man, this is about where I'd be.

I assume you mean the currency. I'll ask him and see what he says. Its not a telling indictment of anything. First, compared to the US and Japan, Canada did well. Second, there is nothing magical about manufacturing jobs. The number of manufacturing jobs is not indicative of economic strength, just as the number of agricultural jobs was not indicative of economic health in 1900. Again, that's not correct. In his study, he concludes that wages rose 3% because of NAFTA. Now that's no great shakes either, but as he concluded, people think/thought wages would fall because of the deal and that hasn't happened. But they were high in low-margin, low-efficient, low-value added industries. Those were the industries that felt the greatest effects under the agreement, as one would expect. However, the biggest conclusion in that paper was productivity at the plants that remained soared much higher than he expected. That's good news because productivity is highly correlated to economic growth and wage growth.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the BC numbers. The last few elections, the Liberals have been strong in the polls only to see their stength evaporate at the end on election day.

But who generated those figures? What were their sources? What were their methodologies? I would like to see them if anyone has them. Like the professor said, low tech, low margin, low paying industries took a big hit. But you cannot look at that in isolation. They were replaced by jobs elsewhere. That's what is supposed to happen. Decreasing tariffs is supposed to make your economy more efficient, and NAFTA did. That's the biggest conclusion in the paper.

Food for thought. http://www.iccfglobal.org/research/climate...-10dec2004.html