Who said anything about trade between NY and CA? I believe what I said was that I believe in free and fair trade.
Equality (or close to it) in the balance of trade. You buy $10 worth of my stuff. I buy $10 of your stuff.
Which in an amazing sort of way is what NAFTA delivered between Canada and the US. Although the US comes out some $12 billion or (roughly 5% of total trade) ahead. And how does a government mandate that their private industries buy more goods from another country, let alone their consumer citizens? I can see it now when Donnie in the name of "fair trade" orders americans to buy more Canadian maple syrup and softwood lumber, in order to make our trade relations "fair". Seems the trumpian vision of fair trade is much like many of his other ones. Based on ignorance, delusion and an entrenched transactional mindset.
trade between individuals states and nations is the same. Do you want a law preventing states and nations from freely trading with each other? Econ 101 The Golden Rule: In Econ. 101 where you learn the Golden Rule: The more with whom you trade the richer you get whether they are across the street or across the globe. The fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. Imagine how poor you'd be if you had to trade with 1000 people only, or, imagine if there was no trade and you had to make everything yourself. This is Econ 101 class one day one Also, you learn that Hawley Smoot Tariff trade wars helped caused the Great Depression by collapsing word trade. Now you know why we have free trade and why virtually all economists find it about the only thing upon which they can agree.
Trade between individuals isn't the same as trade between countries. There's no inclusion of factor proportions, the learning curve or external economies of scale.
Is this calculation trade in goods plus trade in services Jonsa? You've only mentioned goods there. The trick sly people do is only mention goods or services to misrepresent their position. You have to add both to get the total trade.
The trade deficit is the sum total of goods and services. We have a small surplus on goods and a much large deficit on services. Hence we are america's piggy bank according to trump criteria.
Just fact checked you on that one. I think you have an effective balance of payments. Americas trade deficit to Canada is $1.7 billion. Canada does have a trade surplus with America at this time, but not enough to spit at. Sometimes it it will be surplus some times it will be deficit. A technical trade surplus but effectively.... balance. Nothing much for either side to worry about.
Then why is Trump worrying so much about it? To the extent he designated Canada a national security threat. Quick fact check of your fact check. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled an estimated $673.1 billion in 2017. Exports were $340.7 billion; imports were $332.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $8.4 billion in 2017.
Perhaps that's just what we've been taught? In the very old days, before the 1970s, yes, that may have been the case.
It's all about Canada's milk tariffs. Wisconsin is important to the Republicans. The Wisconsin dairy farmers hate Canada's milk tariffs. Trump wants happy Wisconsin dairy farmers.
The might hate Canadian diary tariffs, but they sure do love those federal government subsidies that cover 70% of their base production costs.
Dunno what "base production costs" are, but after looking at a few websites and punching some keys on a calculator, I'm getting an estimate of $7.6billion in total annual production costs (for Wisconsin) and $120million in annual subsidies (to Wisconsin). Don't know that I'd bet the farm on those numbers, since the data were from different years and different sites, but I tried. Where does the 70% number come from? https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=55000&progcode=dairy http://www.wisconsindairy.org/board-of-directors/facts-stats/farmstatistics https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/milk-cost-of-production-estimates.aspx THIS IS A PDF DOWNLOAD: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52180/MilkStates2010 base.xls?v=0
I got that number and an rather interesting analysis of the american dairy industry from the following source. Allbeit Canadian but it does seem very well researched. https://www.realagriculture.com/201...-percent-of-producer-returns-says-new-report/
GRAVE NEW WORLD Yeh, but when you want to buy a car or a house, you look around at the different possibilities before buying at the lowest or most convenient price. Why should Free Trade be any different a marketplace? Americans weren't bothered from the early 1990s onward when China finally opened its doors to trade with the world. We bought Chinese products at VERY knockdown prices with a passion. And now, when all those jobs have been lost because of that "trade", somehow it's NOT GOODNESS? In any international market, if you want to participate in that greatly expanded Demand because it "creates jobs", then a country cannot have its cake AND eat it! So what does that mean? This: Job Skills must go upmarket because base-work jobs are being replaced by robotics. This means our workforce must have advanced skills which is where the jobs are nowadays. Which means further that Tertiary Education must be free, gratis and for nothing just as Secondary Schooling is presently. Let's face reality, shall we? It's an entirely Grave New World we live in ... ! (And it is neither a Donald Dork nor his Secretary of Education who understand the problem and its challenge to the nation!)
You seem ill at ease with reality. There's a reason why WTO reform has stalled and support for economic development failed.
Why am I here? Nothing but Looney Toons, separatists from Security Nations, bullies, and those who would play games negotiating with those who would use human lives as collateral
Baseless accusations without real examples to make your point. Try something more robust than one-liner sarcasm, of which this forum is replete. Better yet, just go away if you've nothing more to really add to the debate ...
I downloaded the 588 page report that the article was based on and skimmed through it. It cited an additional $40million in state and local subsidies (for Wisconsin). Bringing my number up to $160million. My number, to the the extent I was able to determine, consists of direct subsidies to the farmers. The report includes many additional programs. Some of which I agree with including. Others I'm not so sure about, even though I don't question their validity. Since I focused on the state of Wisconsin, and the report focuses on the entire US dairy industry, there will be some major differences in our respective results. One big one is subsidized water for irrigation of feed crops. That isn't a big thing in Wisconsin. In fact, the subsidization of water, in dry areas of the US, helps to support Wisconsin's competition. One area of support, which the report includes, is government food programs. I agree that food programs, such as school lunches and food stamps, artificially raise demand. I'm not sure that I would include them as farm subsidies, though. Reasonable people may disagree.
