Since you said, "I would if I could be bothered," therefore, now we have established you are not using "/" as a logical operator, but as a mathematical operation.
"Why do you think virtually every country with greater trade importance (i.e. imports/exports as % of GDP) has lower working poverty than the US?"
One could corelate usable data with "lower working poverty" but not unusable data. How one gets "greater trade importance" by dividing imports by exports, when increasing that ratio means less imports can be purchased.
The little "x's" representing exports are on top of the "/" and the little "m's" representing imports are below.
If you want to use "/" as a logical operator and go back to post #16 where I said:
"2009 'Imports of goods and services (% of GDP)' China '22' France '25' Germany '37' USA '14'";
Or, you could use 2009 "Exports of goods and services (% of GDP)"
China "27" France "23" Germany "42" USA "11" http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS
And then corelate those numbers with "lower working poverty"; feel free.
Since you have established that we are dealing with a ratio of imports / exports. Let's play with the above numbers as if they mean something.
China 22/27 France 25/23 Germs 37/42 USA 14/11
Percentages, thinking in terms of terms of trade, but with your funny math of dividing imports by exports, "Imports of goods and services (% of GDP)" / "Exports of goods and services (% of GDP)":
81 108 88 127
Makes us look good. Certainly if we divide imports by exports it "makes the 'trade is our doom' bobbins look particularly childish."
Percentages, as in like terms of trade, "Exports of goods and services (% of GDP)" / "Imports of goods and services (% of GDP)":
122 92 113 78
Makes us look bad.
"Greater trade importance," more exports than imports (as % of GDP), would be China and Germany, yet as stated Asia has a vast sea of working poor. And we know Germany inherited some from the commies. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8170P120120208
The conclusion is obvious: trade is used as a red herring, typically by people clueless about economics
Like I previously mentioned, trying to argue for the comparative advantage of outsourcing to a low wage country is completely ridiculous when wages (relative to the cost of living) are already low in ones own country, and unemployment is high. If there were plenty of good paying jobs available for all our citizens that would be one thing, but there is not.
In any case, much of the claimed economic "gains" are not really gains at all, just higher costs of housing, which does not really help people on the whole (but rather is harmful). So if you have an economic study that indicates gains, please exclude the increased cost of housing and see whether it still suggests gains after that.
Skill isn't that hard to acquire. Finish high school, 50% more likely to be employed, finish college, 300% more likely - with Junior Colleges and student loans, getting educated isn't that hard.
Unemployment based on education Level Achieved
Less than High School 12.6%
High School Grad 8.4%
Some College or Associate Degree 7.5%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 4.1%
But, if you still want to eliminate trade, become an economic zone of one household. Being self sufficient, you will always be employed, and you will be incredibly poor.
You can read the inverview or listen to the podcast. The economic gains are better than the media would let you believe (for some odd reason, good news isn't "news").
Perhaps an argument for racial or cultural comparative advantage between different nations can be made. Some cultures might be better at doing certain things than other cultures. Hitler referred to the Japanese as the "Aryans of Asia". It would be interesting if you could point out any similar examples of such specialisation outside of the northeastern asian countries (Japan,Korea,China) and northern europe.
Don't be shy now: Can you refer to one empirical paper that finds that trade gains are insignificant or negative?