If China doesn't agree to fair trade, what should Trump do?

Nope! Lafa is giving Tony Blair-type comment, pretending that it is economic. Tony massively invested in tertiary education, but ultimately intensified social immobility problem (i.e. middle class, with degree, taking jobs from the working classes). Lafa ignores the need for transformation of the economy.

 

What transformation ? We are not a production economy anymore.

 

Problematic on two levels. First, you're wrong. Production continues. Second, you haven't understood the point made. It referred to how centrists are pushing a fake social democratic agenda. They're ignoring the need for more radical policies required to solve structural flaws in the economy. Ultimately, by focusing too much on education, they're as enfeebled as supply-siders.

 

MORE BRAIN THAN BRAWN

You may have blinders on if you think that economy is measured in terms of Industrial Production.

Total production is a combination of three components: Agricultural, Industrial and Services. By far, Services is the most important.

Services* represents about 80% of Total Economic Production in the US ...

*And, as I am fond of reiterating, "Services require more brain-than-brawn ..."

 

As I said....were not a production economy. We dont produce.....

 

Who is we? America and the second largest manufacturing sector in the world? Perhaps you're Icelandic and moaning about the financial sector?

 

For F’s sake man. Our economy is 71% CONSUMPTION. We’re NOT a production based economy.

 

Sorry, but I can only go by reality. Second largest manufacturing sector. You can refer to deindustrialisation of course, but don't exaggerate!

 

In order to Consume, an economy must Produce.

Duhhhhhh ...

 

It doesnt have to be the majority. We spend more than 70% of our economy in consumption.......and most of the orthe 30% comes from services.....

 

The fact that we are the second largest in manufacturing has absolutly nothing to do with the fact that our economy is not based on that manufacturing. Good lord man.

 

GDP shows otherwise

 

Actually, because of our manufacturing, the US has significant exports, which are part of the GDP.

Consumption is a subcomponent of our economy, however, the US should not be defined as a 'consumption economy'...

 

Your just making **** up now

https://www.thebalance.com/components-of-gdp-explanation-formula-and-chart-3306015

Personal consumption was $12.56 trillion of an overall $18.05 trillion$$ GDP

 

Consumption accounts for 70% of our economy. All due respect, but I’m not sure how you can claim otherwise. And what we produce, even if exported is counted in our GDP, whereas imports take away from GDP. So I’m not sure what point your trying to make ?

 

If you read my comments you would know I did not 'claim otherwise'?? I said consumption is a subcomponent of an economy...period! It is typical for consumption to be the largest component of an economy so don't know what you are harping about?

My point is clearly that the US is a major producer while the US is also a major consumer...

 

Nope, you're the one playing silly blighters by exaggerating deindustrialisation. That manufacturing continues to be a significant share of GDP is a matter of fact.

 

Again, all due respect and I apologize if i missed something here, but you said:

How can we not if the offset of import vs exports is only $800 billion ? That still means that we as a nation still spend more that $12 trillion of an $18 trillion $$ economy ?

 

It’s less that 18% ?

But you keep digging that hole

 

Sounds like you don't understand what significant means!

 

So now your moving the goalposts.......ok.....

 

Nope. I've merely referred to the nature of deindustrialisation. It is rare for it to mean insignificant manufacturing. It typically refers to increased importance of services because of productivity and income growth.

You've gone for a standard emotionism instead, forgetting credible reference to economics.

 

You mean when I posted the actuall numbers ? That emotion ?

 

You gave the emotion and then, again emotively, failed to realise the numbers were in conflict. My advice? Try a more logical application of deindustrialisation analysis.

 

Just WOW......

I provided numbers, you just keep spewing words with “isation” on the end for some reason, with nothing to refute what I said.

We’re done here. Have a nice day