Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Nice vid of you, but I thought trolls had short ears, and their eyes were closer together?

Asg## = obnoxious little irritate worse than head lice

.
as long as countries import more than they export
globalization is a recipe for pauperisation
most become poorer while a few get richer
it could work as long as most people votes are sterilized in some process
and as long as the central power structure keep control of the streets

sparky wrote:.
as long as countries import more than they export
globalization is a recipe for pauperisation
most become poorer while a few get richer
it could work as long as most people votes are sterilized in some process
and as long as the central power structure keep control of the streets

A couple of flaws there. Countries have their own productive prosperity so need not pay for every import with an export. Wealth is not a zero sum game so the rich getting richer does not rely on the poor getting poorer or even the poor being left behind.

.
Basically yes , every import has to be paid for ,
the only way to sustain foreign imports is to export or provide services to foreigners
a country productive capacity is immaterial if foreign money is not obtained from it

sparky wrote:.
Basically yes , every import has to be paid for ,
the only way to sustain foreign imports is to export or provide services to foreigners
a country productive capacity is immaterial if foreign money is not obtained from it

You are totally wrong there. A countries or the worlds money supply is not fixed and grows from economic activity. America spent trillions on imported mid east oil from the 70's to just recently. That trade imbalance was paid for not in exports but in cash generated by the US economy which hummed along quite nicely with that relatively cheap oil.

vtsnowedin wrote:

sparky wrote:.
Basically yes , every import has to be paid for ,
the only way to sustain foreign imports is to export or provide services to foreigners
a country productive capacity is immaterial if foreign money is not obtained from it

You are totally wrong there.

I don't think he's totally wrong.
I think he's mostly correct. Imports must match exports to be sustainable. If not, you're asking for trouble in the long run.

mousepad wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

sparky wrote:.
Basically yes , every import has to be paid for ,
the only way to sustain foreign imports is to export or provide services to foreigners
a country productive capacity is immaterial if foreign money is not obtained from it

You are totally wrong there.

I don't think he's totally wrong.
I think he's mostly correct. Imports must match exports to be sustainable. If not, you're asking for trouble in the long run.

While having a positive balance of trade is indeed a good thing having a negative balance is not in and of itself the end of the world. Foreign debts do not have to be paid exclusively from the profits from exports. As long as the whole economy is productive excess imports can be paid from those profit streams. The idea that exports must match imports to be sustainable is both simplistic and wrong. Most years we have an imbalance one way or the other with most of the countries we trade with. Quite often those with excess cash in hand from exporting to us reinvest their profits here and let the Wall street sharks feed on their profits.

.
The case of the US is a bit special ,
they produce and export greenbacks which so far have been the token of exchange for the world trade
the greenbacks are a desired and valued commodities

The Lebanese pound has no such attraction and really nobody , including the Lebanese people themselves ,want it
the Argentina Peso is not standing very high in the financial world respect
I do not need to go on , you get the picture

the US benefit of what has been called the "exorbitant advantage" of generating the world currency
it's like if you could print van Gogh masterpieces on your lounge printer and sell them to eager buyers

of course should the US dollar fall from favor , there would be dire consequences

Greenbacks are very rare these days (they were debt free money), the US dollar that is currently in circulation is debt based (based on faith only).
So people who take the US dollar have faith in it retaining its value in the near future and that they can exchange it for other products.

World trade is totally dependent of the faith traders have in the currencies they deal with.

dolanbaker wrote:Greenbacks are very rare these days (they were debt free money), the US dollar that is currently in circulation is debt based (based on faith only).
So people who take the US dollar have faith in it retaining its value in the near future and that they can exchange it for other products. World trade is totally dependent of the faith traders have in the currencies they deal with.

LOL, that's crap, the dollar is in high demand. It is the least dirty shirt. Much of this is driven by the Euro Dollar which is dollar denominated debt created outside the US. Many people hate the dollar but what is the alternative? The Euro area is a mess so the Euro it not an alternative. Chinese Yuan would collpase significantly with capital flight if it were liberalized. There is not enough gold or discipline to accommodate a gold standard. The World is trapped in the dollar system and can only leave it when the dollar and globalism collpase into a new arrangement. Who knows the process and the result but the status quo is not sustainable.

Read my comment again.

vtsnowedin wrote:

Imports must match exports to be sustainable. If not, you're asking for trouble in the long run.

While having a positive balance of trade is indeed a good thing having a negative balance

I don't think you are correct. The balance sheet should not be positive and it should not be negative. It should be 0.
All else is imbalance, which eventually (this can take a long time) leads to instability and serious issues.

Take germany as an example for positive balance. On first glance this seems a good thing. But looking closely you realize that germany is sucking neighbors dry of euros, destabilizing the whole eurozone.

is not in and of itself the end of the world.

That of course is correct. Hardly anything is the end of the world. And once the $$ loses its world currency status the US indeed has a chance to become an export nation again, reversing the trend.

often those with excess cash in hand from exporting to us reinvest their profits here .

Or in other words you're having to sell your assets to pay for the imports. I wouldn't call that a good thing.

mousepad wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: often those with excess cash in hand from exporting to us reinvest their profits here .

Or in other words you're having to sell your assets to pay for the imports. I wouldn't call that a good thing.

Well you have settled the bill but have not yet delivered the export used and perhaps it can't be ex[ported such as land or is worth more to the buyer left here being an ongoing profit maker in it's present location. Shares of Apple stock don't need to be in a tent in Saudi Arabia.

vtsnowedin wrote:

mousepad wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: often those with excess cash in hand from exporting to us reinvest their profits here .

Or in other words you're having to sell your assets to pay for the imports. I wouldn't call that a good thing.

Well you have settled the bill but have not yet delivered the export used and perhaps it can't be ex[ported such as land or is worth more to the buyer left here being an ongoing profit maker in it's present location. Shares of Apple stock don't need to be in a tent in Saudi Arabia.

Of course that's all true what you're saying. Nevertheless, you're paying for your imports with assets. You sell your land, you sell your companies, you sell your intellectual properties. There comes a point when you're sold out. It's not sustainable. The only thing stable is a import/export balance of 0.

mousepad wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

mousepad wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: often those with excess cash in hand from exporting to us reinvest their profits here .

Or in other words you're having to sell your assets to pay for the imports. I wouldn't call that a good thing.

Well you have settled the bill but have not yet delivered the export used and perhaps it can't be ex[ported such as land or is worth more to the buyer left here being an ongoing profit maker in it's present location. Shares of Apple stock don't need to be in a tent in Saudi Arabia.

Of course that's all true what you're saying. Nevertheless, you're paying for your imports with assets. You sell your land, you sell your companies, you sell your intellectual properties. There comes a point when you're sold out. It's not sustainable. The only thing stable is a import/export balance of 0.

This brings to mind that T shirt slogan about crayons and time. I am obviously not a proficient enough educator to correct your misunderstanding.
Time to move on.

vtsnowedin wrote: I am obviously not a proficient enough educator to correct your misunderstanding.
Time to move on.

Maybe you are not a proficient enough educator, that could be. But let's not give up that easily. Unlike many a poster here I'm willing to learn and I have updated my understanding a few times based on what people here posted. Can we try again?

Let's take the european experience as an example. Can you explain how germany's consistent export surplus does not pose a problem in the long run.

mousepad wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: I am obviously not a proficient enough educator to correct your misunderstanding.
Time to move on.

Maybe you are not a proficient enough educator, that could be. But let's not give up that easily. Unlike many a poster here I'm willing to learn and I have updated my understanding a few times based on what people here posted. Can we try again?

Let's take the European experience as an example. Can you explain how Germany's consistent export surplus does not pose a problem in the long run.

Well in the run up to the last recession, that German surplus was heavily invested in other EU countries, notably the PIIGS, when the recession came, much of that money was found to be invested in property and those countries needed bailing out.
The short term private investments became state long term debt.

dolanbaker wrote:

mousepad wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: I am obviously not a proficient enough educator to correct your misunderstanding.
Time to move on.

Maybe you are not a proficient enough educator, that could be. But let's not give up that easily. Unlike many a poster here I'm willing to learn and I have updated my understanding a few times based on what people here posted. Can we try again?

Let's take the European experience as an example. Can you explain how Germany's consistent export surplus does not pose a problem in the long run.

Well in the run up to the last recession, that German surplus was heavily invested in other EU countries, notably the PIIGS, when the recession came, much of that money was found to be invested in property and those countries needed bailing out.
The short term private investments became state long term debt.

So what are you saying? To me "bail out" doesn't seem a very stable situation.

vtsnowedin wrote:correct your misunderstanding.
Time to move on.

Before you move on, I found this piece. It sounds much more plausible in its logic than the version you gave me of "trade imbalance doesn't' matter".

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rman-wages

Because Germany imports significantly less than it exports, this money gets stuck, failing to return, for example, as Germans buying Italian goods or Spanish services. The scale of this is astounding. Since 2008, Germany’s surpluses have hoovered an average of €110bn (£94bn) out of the rest of Europe each year, according to data from Germany’s central bank.

The point about commercial transactions being a closed circuit is valid
money (value) must circulate in a circuit for the trading world to function well

There has been some dire development since a few months
with oil producers going broke , they have less money to purchase goods and services from the oil consumer countries
even worst ,
their financial needs being quite large they have to repatriate their assets in oil consuming countries
such as treasuries bonds and others
that's going to hurt
the East Asian economies are also going through a hard patch , they also might have need for some fresh cash and might have to repatriate home some of their excess profits stored in their consumer countries