A look back at the trillions of dollars we've lost thanks to so called "Free Trade" deals.

[Elwood P Dowd]

I dug up this old email sent to me almost 5 years ago. Haven't the courage to check and see how much worse its become since then, but I know we're still running hundreds of billions a year in trade deficits.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September, 2010 - A sad month in US history.

America’s economy has reached a very sad milestone. Our cumulative trade deficit, since our last trade surplus in 1975, expressed in current dollars, has now eclipsed $10 trillion.

America experienced its last surplus of trade in 1975. Since then, through July, the most recent month for which trade data has been released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cumulative trade deficit was $9.93 trillion. Assuming a continuing monthly trade deficit of $45 billion (the current 3-month moving average), it is estimated that the trade deficit has now reached $10 trillion as of September 15th.

The U.S. is on track for its 35th consecutive annual trade deficit in 2010 since its last trade surplus in 1975. The U.S. trade deficit of $759 billion set a record in 2006. With the onset of the global recession in 2007, it fell steadily to $375 billion in 2009, but is expected to rise again to over $500 billion in 2010. Almost half of all Americans alive today have never known an America with a trade surplus.

Through July, 2010, America’s largest trade deficit is with China, at $145.3 billion. The trade deficit with Mexico is second at $38.4 billion. The trade deficit with Japan is third at $31.6 billion. The trade deficit with Germany is fourth at $18.7 billion.

America is $10 trillion poorer today as a result of bone-headed trade policy based on failed 18th century economic theories. That’s $32,250 for every man, woman and child in America – almost $130,000 for every family of four. It’s enough money to solve virtually every financial challenge facing America, including putting the social security fund back on sound footing. It’s enough money to nearly wipe out our national debt.

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. Thanks for the kick. Doesn't seem to be much concern over this.

Every new trade deal that comes down the pike is promising to correct this, but they always make it worse.

&list=RDDpKAnp5Klzw#t=0

[Faux pas]

3. You're welcome

Elwood P Dowd. Guess everyone too busy arguing about 2016

[Katashi_itto]

4. K&R!

[romanic]

5. Great read.

These trade deals are anything but a "deal".

[Enthusiast]

6. Those that would intentionally contribute to this trade deficit certainly cannot be considered

patriots in any sense of the word.

[bhikkhu]

7. People choose to buy imports all the time

...that's virtually everybody.

But its not such a big issue, really. Exports are about 10% of our economy, and imports are about 13%. That's paltry, considering international averages where 30-40% are common. Oil was always the big problem in the last three or four decades, but our production is higher and prices are lower, so that's not such a problem now. The current issue, which has some of the halmarks of a "bubble", is the strength of the US dollar. That makes it expensive for anyone to buy our goods and makes imports cheap.

If anyone were really interested in improving trade and helping US manufacturing, jobs and the trade balance, a "weak dollar" policy would be the central focus. Much of the rest is hyperbole.

[Enthusiast]

8. You are going to have to show some links that support your allegations on the export-import

figures.

It does not seem paltry to those of us that lost our jobs in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

[bhikkhu]

10. Here's a couple of links:

"A trading nation (also known as a trade-dependent economy, or an export-oriented economy) is a country where international trade makes up a large percentage of its economy.

Smaller nations (by population) tend to be more trade-dependent than larger ones. In 2008, the most trade-dependent OECD member was Luxembourg, where trade was worth 313.08% of GDP, while the least trade-dependent was the United States, where trade made up 30.41% of GDP.[1] "{my bold}. 30% being imports and exports added together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_nation

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_trade#Top_trading_nations

...which again lists the US as the least import/export dependent of developed nations, going by % of GDP.

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_imports the US is at the top of the list of gross expenditures on imports, but our GDP is so much larger it makes for a relatively small slice, compared to other nations. If you are actually interested in the problem it might be worth some research as to how many traditional manufacturing jobs have been lost due to off-shoring production, vs how many have been lost to modern robotic production techniques.

[taught_me_patience]

9. The fool who wrote this has no clue about economics

saying that our cumulative trade deficit of $10T means we are "$10 trillion poorer today" is completely and utter bogus. Please do not pay any attention to this nonsense.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. K&R