Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
We have a different definition of fair .
|
I showed you mine, now you show me yours.
Quote:
|
The idea is to have free and fair trade that is relatively balanced so both sides benefit approximately equally.
|
By definition, fair trade as determined by the government is the opposite of free trade. Why does it have to be balanced? There is a liquor store near me with which I have a totally unbalanced trade situation. I buy stuff from them, they buy nothing from me. I am happy with that, and they appear to be also.
How many states have an unbalanced trade situation with California, buying more produce, high tech services, etc., than they sell to California. Why is that not a problem for those states?
Quote:
|
The "capital surplus" is then invested (usually by FOREIGNERS) in US assets. It is money invested here, but US citizens often do not own those assets. Foreigners do and they get to decide what to invest in, when, at what price, and at what interest rate. If they don't like the deal, they can dump US assets and crush the economy.
|
So if BMW get upset with us, they can dump their US car factories and crush our economy? How would that work?
A lot of "American" assets are not owned by US citizens. How many foreign interests own what percentage of GE or Ford? It doesn't matter. Those foreign owners of US assets care more about their personal investments than their home country politics.
