EU tariffs on US goods come into force

[innkeeper]

it wasn't so funny back in WWII when no one was there to help stop the invasion fo Poland now was it.

LOL, US citizens and their partial view of the rest of the world strikes again... I gather that maybe 8..9 out of 10 polish would have preferred the german occupation to what the allies left them with: Yalta was a betrayal. IOW: thank you for nothing. (I'm not polish)

   WWII started with the invasion of Poland

[innkeeper]

All of the countries with major trade imbalances have a significant foreign debt

Negative trade imbalance rank	country	Imbalance Millions USD	Forign Debt Rank	Forign Debt Millions USD
1	United States	462000	1	21171000000
2	United Kingdom	91420	2	8475956000
3	Canada	55570	11	1931900000
4	Turkey	38950	26	453207000
5	India	33680	22	453207000
6	Brazil	28990	20	556418000
7	France	28920	5	5689745000
8	Algeria	22870	136	3139000
9	Argentina	22130	35	363117000
10	Australia	21680	14	1487720000
11	Egypt	19830	57	67,322,600,
12	Mexico	19810	28	437367000
13	Indonesia	17030	31	335289000
14	Iraq	12220	56	68010000
15	Colombia	11700	45	121097200
16	Pakistan	11670	53	82980700
17	Oman	10300	88	20850000
18	South Africa	9810	42	142833000
19	Lebanon	9488	72	27796000
20	Kazakhstan	8291	39	165501000

[IanB]

All of the countries with major trade imbalances have a significant foreign debt

When do you feel more comfortable? When you have lent lots of money to other people, and you are concerned about them paying it back? Or when you have borrowed lots of money from other people, and your bank balance is swelled by all that money?

[Rick Law]

...
...
 "The notion that bilateral trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by trade experts and economists."

Economists say as much. The US had a stellar trade surplus during The Great Depression, for example. Either Trump is using it as a ploy and banks on people not understanding the concept, or doesn't understand the concept himself. It can't be used as a metric for "winning" or "losing" in the way it's used now.

Re:Expert opinions

Now that is a difference between here and there.  Here in the EE forum, we are science and fact base.  When you say V=IR or too much current will make a resister hot, those are stuff we can test and repeatable.  So, EE expert opinion (unless from a fake expert) can be counted on.

For stuff like economy/trade, expert opinions are just opinions.  I place very little credibility on them until I know the opinion giver (and his/her body of work) well.

I do know math - I know when a business buys more than it can sell, unless that changes, that business is going bust.  So I found it hard to believe these expert opinions that (on an on-going basis) spending more on trade than we earn from trade can possibly be good.

[Mr. Scram]

Re:Expert opinions

Now that is a difference between here and there.  Here in the EE forum, we are science and fact base.  When you say V=IR or too much current will make a resister hot, those are stuff we can test and repeatable.  So, EE expert opinion (unless from a fake expert) can be counted on.

For stuff like economy/trade, expert opinions are just opinions.  I place very little credibility on them until I know the opinion giver (and his/her body of work) well.

I do know math - I know when a business buys more than it can sell, unless that changes, that business is going bust.  So I found it hard to believe these expert opinions that (on an on-going basis) spending more on trade than we earn from trade can possibly be good.

Re:Re:Expert opinion

People seem to be making the most basic mistakes when it comes to economic matters. One can't compare a country to a business. Businesses can't create money. Countries can and do create money. That completely negates any simplistic in versus out comparisons. We're not just talking about printing money either, we're talking about value being created. Actual material wealth, not just numbers. The wealth of a nation can and does increase without surplus trade.

It's very possible that having a trade deficit is actually good for creating wealth, causing you to accumulate more wealthy quicker. After all, if you can purchase the means for creating wealth at a much lower cost it's much more easily done.

Economists aren't always agreeing and regularly wrong because it's an incredibly complicated subject with many parts interacting. Having people applying their homegrown seat of the pants logic without really understanding even the basic ingredients is bound to lead to all sorts of misconceptions.

[Mr. Scram]

All of the countries with major trade imbalances have a significant foreign debt

Negative trade imbalance rank	country	Imbalance Millions USD	Forign Debt Rank	Forign Debt Millions USD
1	United States	462000	1	21171000000
2	United Kingdom	91420	2	8475956000
3	Canada	55570	11	1931900000
4	Turkey	38950	26	453207000
5	India	33680	22	453207000
6	Brazil	28990	20	556418000
7	France	28920	5	5689745000
8	Algeria	22870	136	3139000
9	Argentina	22130	35	363117000
10	Australia	21680	14	1487720000
11	Egypt	19830	57	67,322,600,
12	Mexico	19810	28	437367000
13	Indonesia	17030	31	335289000
14	Iraq	12220	56	68010000
15	Colombia	11700	45	121097200
16	Pakistan	11670	53	82980700
17	Oman	10300	88	20850000
18	South Africa	9810	42	142833000
19	Lebanon	9488	72	27796000
20	Kazakhstan	8291	39	165501000

If anything, this list shows there isn't any correlation between trade deficit and international debt. Both rankings would be much more similar, while only the top two follow the predicted pattern.

If that weren't enough, Russia, China and Japan all have very large positive trade balances. Those are respectively ranked number 21, 13 and 7 on the foreign debt list.

Like the previous post, it seems to be random data that is presented in a way that fits the narrative.

[Marco]

   
When do you feel more comfortable? When you have lent lots of money to other people, and you are concerned about them paying it back? Or when you have borrowed lots of money from other people, and your bank balance is swelled by all that money?

Assuming no leverage, definitely as a lender ... if they default I still have my productivity and no debt. In the second case if my productivity drops I'll be in indentured servitude (see Argentina).

[Marco]

It's very possible that having a trade deficit is actually good for creating wealth, causing you to accumulate more wealthy quicker. After all, if you can purchase the means for creating wealth at a much lower cost it's much more easily done.

The means for creating wealth are natural resources and human capital. The US mostly imports items high on the value chain, so that leaves human capital ... it is the beneficiary of international brain drain, attracted to the living standards artificially raised by their trade deficit (at least for the higher incomes). Brain drain might be positive for the US, but it distorts international economies.

IMO universal trade balances are much better for raising all boats.

[batteksystem]

If the EU was serious about tariffs that hurt the US they would all be on weapons and military gear and air planes.

In case of trade war escalating, these things are not completely not on table. Although since government are mostly likely the only user, they are actually hurting themselves in case those components are not replaceable.

[Mr. Scram]

The means for creating wealth are natural resources and human capital. The US mostly imports items high on the value chain, so that leaves human capital ... it is the beneficiary of international brain drain, attracted to the living standards artificially raised by their trade deficit (at least for the higher incomes). Brain drain might be positive for the US, but it distorts international economies.

IMO universal trade balances are much better for raising all boats.

Importing items to provide much more valuable services can create value and wealth. If Dave can afford one US built crane and Bob can afford three foreign cranes for the same money, who's going to build bridges faster? Autarky isn't realistic, especially in a world economy.

[Zero999]

All of the countries with major trade imbalances have a significant foreign debt

Negative trade imbalance rank	country	Imbalance Millions USD	Forign Debt Rank	Forign Debt Millions USD
1	United States	462000	1	21171000000
2	United Kingdom	91420	2	8475956000
3	Canada	55570	11	1931900000
4	Turkey	38950	26	453207000
5	India	33680	22	453207000
6	Brazil	28990	20	556418000
7	France	28920	5	5689745000
8	Algeria	22870	136	3139000
9	Argentina	22130	35	363117000
10	Australia	21680	14	1487720000
11	Egypt	19830	57	67,322,600,
12	Mexico	19810	28	437367000
13	Indonesia	17030	31	335289000
14	Iraq	12220	56	68010000
15	Colombia	11700	45	121097200
16	Pakistan	11670	53	82980700
17	Oman	10300	88	20850000
18	South Africa	9810	42	142833000
19	Lebanon	9488	72	27796000
20	Kazakhstan	8291	39	165501000

If anything, this list shows there isn't any correlation between trade deficit and international debt. Both rankings would be much more similar, while only the top two follow the predicted pattern.

If that weren't enough, Russia, China and Japan all have very large positive trade balances. Those are respectively ranked number 21, 13 and 7 on the foreign debt list.

Like the previous post, it seems to be random data that is presented in a way that fits the narrative.

Even if there was a correlation, between trade imbalance and national debt, it wouldn't mean it's the cause.

Those figures are also misleading, because they don't take the population size into account.

[nctnico]

it wasn't so funny back in WWII when no one was there to help stop the invasion fo Poland now was it.

LOL, US citizens and their partial view of the rest of the world strikes again... I gather that maybe 8..9 out of 10 polish would have preferred the german occupation to what the allies left them with: Yalta was a betrayal. IOW: thank you for nothing. (I'm not polish)

  WWII started with the invasion of Poland

Nope. Japan invaded China in 1937. The invasion of Poland was in 1939.

[Alex Nikitin]

Nope. Japan invaded China in 1937. The invasion of Poland was in 1939.

 

And Genghis Khan attacked Western Xia in 1209 !

Cheers

Alex

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

it wasn't so funny back in WWII when no one was there to help stop the invasion fo Poland now was it.

LOL, US citizens and their partial view of the rest of the world strikes again... I gather that maybe 8..9 out of 10 polish would have preferred the german occupation to what the allies left them with: Yalta was a betrayal. IOW: thank you for nothing. (I'm not polish)

  WWII started with the invasion of Poland

Invasion? Really? Have a look at these maps of Poland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland#1918

And please, stop watching "The world at war", it's entertaining, but mostly just a pile of shameful british propaganda. Good for them! 

Many say the first shot of WWII was fired at Westerplatte, just next to the Free City of Danzig:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerplatte
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gda%C5%84sk#Free_City_(1920–1939)

Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Allied powers in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) decided to create the Free City of Danzig (under a commissioner appointed by the League of Nations) covering the city itself, the seaport, and a substantial surrounding territory. The League of Nations rejected the citizens' petition to have their city officially named as the Free Hanseatic city of Danzig (Freie Hansestadt Danzig).[43] The citizens of Danzig received a separate citizenship of the Free City and thus lost their former German citizenship

[nctnico]

Nope. Japan invaded China in 1937. The invasion of Poland was in 1939.

And Genghis Khan attacked Western Xia in 1209 !

But that wasn't the start of the conflict we call WW2.

[stj]

germany invaded poland because poland was shielding bolshevik terrorists.

it was all a setup anyway, britain had told them they would protect them if they did - and lied.
poland was the trap, the bolshevik terrorists were the cheese.

now the question is: will poland be stupid enough to be tricked into getting invaded to start the next war??
has NATO made promises to protect poland in exchange for using it as a giant forward operating base?

[innkeeper]

  think the point is now lost in the minutia.

[Rick Law]

Nope. Japan invaded China in 1937. The invasion of Poland was in 1939.

And Genghis Khan attacked Western Xia in 1209 !

But that wasn't the start of the conflict we call WW2.

Invasion of Poland is not the start of WW2 either.  September 1939 Poland invasion merely started Britain's and France's engagements with Germany turning a border war into a regional war.  Russia and the USA were at peace at the time while other regional wars were going on.

-  Operation Barbarossa was June 1941 which brought Russia into the war against Germany
-  Pearl Harbor in December 7, 1941 brought USA into the Asia regional war
-  Germany declared war on USA on December 11, 1941 - this joined the Asia/Europe wars into one

If you consider the start of any of the belligerence nations starting a fight with each other as the start of WWII, Japan's invasion of China (Marco Polo Bridge incidence) would probably be it.  But that was a regional war.  Not until Asia and European regional wars were joined that the regional wars were thought of as different theaters of a single war - a World-War.

According to Victor David Hanson (VDH): even at the time, it was not thought of as world war until late 1941.  VDH is not your run-of-the-mill farmer.  VDH is a Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and chairs the working group on Military History.  So I consider him an authority on the subject.

You can listen to him saying that (WWII wasn't thought of a world war till late 1941) on his lecture at Hillsdale on Why WWII Matters here:

[schmitt trigger]

Thanks Rick for the very interesting video.

I also agree with the assessment that individual local conflagrations grew and grew until the whole world was engulfed in flames. And thus became a WW.

By the same reasoning it could be argued that the Spanish Civil War was a prelude -by proxy, of WW2. Combatants that faced each other indirectly, eventually fought hand to hand.

[Mr. Scram]

Invasion of Poland is not the start of WW2 either.  September 1939 Poland invasion merely started Britain's and France's engagements with Germany turning a border war into a regional war.  Russia and the USA were at peace at the time while other regional wars were going on.

-  Operation Barbarossa was June 1941 which brought Russia into the war against Germany
-  Pearl Harbor in December 7, 1941 brought USA into the Asia regional war
-  Germany declared war on USA on December 11, 1941 - this joined the Asia/Europe wars into one

If you consider the start of any of the belligerence nations starting a fight with each other as the start of WWII, Japan's invasion of China (Marco Polo Bridge incidence) would probably be it.  But that was a regional war.  Not until Asia and European regional wars were joined that the regional wars were thought of as different theaters of a single war - a World-War.

According to Victor David Hanson (VDH): even at the time, it was not thought of as world war until late 1941.  VDH is not your run-of-the-mill farmer.  VDH is a Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and chairs the working group on Military History.  So I consider him an authority on the subject.

You can listen to him saying that (WWII wasn't thought of a world war till late 1941) on his lecture at Hillsdale on Why WWII Matters here:

Re:Re:Re:Expert opinions

[nctnico]

Agreed. The war didn't start at the point when it met the requirements for being a world war. It started earlier so you can just as easely say that the first invasion was the start of the world war.

[iainwhite]

Official unemployment rate in UK is 4.1%. If you count children and retired, then I guess you could get 30%  .

and in the USA, it is currently about 4%

[Mr. Scram]

Agreed. The war didn't start at the point when it met the requirements for being a world war. It started earlier so you can just as easely say that the first invasion was the start of the world war.

It seems some countries went down paths that would inevitably lead to war long before that actually happened. How exactly things would unfold was to be decided, but that it would happen seems inevitable.

[Rick Law]

...
According to Victor David Hanson (VDH): even at the time, it was not thought of as world war until late 1941.  VDH is not your run-of-the-mill farmer.  VDH is a Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and chairs the working group on Military History.  So I consider him an authority on the subject.
...

Re:Re:Re:Expert opinions

I guess you picked out my inconsistency here when I poo-poo off the expert economist's opinions on trade v deficit, but then I cited VDH as an authority on the subject of military history and went with it.

You have a point there - I suppose I owe you a clarification: I compartmentalize by the type of information.

With history, what happened or not is rather definitive until discovery of new evidence.  Real historians should know and have analyzed most if not all known evidence.  So, with "what did happened and when?", once their bonafide is established, I trust them as authorities on the subject.

But, when they hypothesize "what if's" such as "what if Germany got to Stalingrad a couple of months sooner?".  Expert answers to that in my view are educated opinions.  I would view them the same as I view expert economist(s): I must know more about the expert or his/her body of work before I consider the opinion as reliable likely or not.