Where is the US going?

[essentialsaltes]

But whats the view from within America?

I'm tired of Australia's selfish trade practices, by which it only sends us Foster's and keeps all the good beer for itself. Don't make us come down there to take it from you.

More seriously, I agree with those who say this (and Trump himself) is an aberration. But I worry about how 'temporary' it might be. Alliances and treaties take a long time to establish -- the negotiations around them take years. Trump ripping some of them apart will take more than one election cycle to reestablish or renegotiate. He seems to treat everything as simple as signing a lease. You shake hands, sign a piece of paper, smile for the cameras, and things are a done deal. His experience with North Korea and China (and Mexico and Canada and the Palestinian Authority and...) may have suddenly penetrated his skull that he's not getting the results he wanted. Sadly, he doesn't seem to be shifting his strategy. Instead, we're just getting the Stalinesque treatment: things are fine, North Korea is no longer a threat, we're winning the trade war with China (you can tell because we keep getting more and more tariffs, the best and biggliest tariffs).

Our sphere of influence is shrinking because people around the world (as you express) are unsure and uncertain of the US as a partner. How did we lose the game when we were the only superpower left?

 

[essentialsaltes]

America has to do something before we collapse under the weight of debt due mainly to ... trade deficits.

But surely we should try to do something that doesn't make the problem worse.

 

[dzheremi]

How did we lose the game when we were the only superpower left?

What else is there left to do at that point, really? We've had the tech bubble, the housing bubble...maybe now it's the America bubble.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

This is not the kind of post that I would expect from you. Bad day friend?

Sort of but I would have said the same anyways.

It's just hard to be optimistic these days. I sort of agree with OldWiseGuy that this decline predates Trump but he's just really hit the gas on it.

I'll keep doing my part in not making things worse but I'm also not holding out much hope for now.

I do appreciate you reaching out, though.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Trade deficits and federal debt are not the same thing.

See Japan for an example of a huge national debt but trade surplus.

Revenue shortfalls resulting from trade deficits are backfilled by borrowing, which increases the national debt.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hmm...well I guess going back to the 1950s is one way to deal with all these immigrants who are supposedly coming here to take our jobs and/or kill us/drain our welfare system/force us all to speak Spanish/whatever the next thing is, since America's immigration laws didn't really begin to resemble the modern system until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the earlier quota system based on national origin. Then again, part of the selling point of the 1965 act was (apparently; this was before my time) that it would attract skilled labor to the USA, and I'm not entirely sure that this wouldn't be read as "they're taking our jobs!" in today's political climate...

The first domino to fall was Holly's death. The next domino was the rise of the Beatles. The dominos have been falling since, morphing into trade deficits and runaway inflation of the 1970's. The rest is history.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'll keep doing my part in not making things worse............

Oh that there were more of us.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

America has to do something before we collapse under the weight of debt due mainly to our accumulated trade deficits.

All I see is people will be paying more for things. And the national debt getting hire. Before a Demacrat comes back and fixes another Republican caused nightmare.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Revenue shortfalls resulting from trade deficits are backfilled by borrowing, which increases the national debt.

Trade deficits have nothing to do with federal borrowing.

https://apps.bea.gov/about/pdf/international_ita.pdf
https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/methodologies/ONE PDF - IEA Concepts Methods.pdf#page=8

 

[expos4ever]

I think it's an historical oddity and doesn't represent long-term change, at least not yet. Trump is one of the least popular presidents in our history. He won because of many factors besides people actual liking him here.

I agree. I think Trump is the result of a perfect storm of unfortunate events. I think there is every reason to believe this ugly chapter of American history - with its overtones of xenophobia and anti-intellectualism- will be a short one.

 

[Halbhh]

It would appear that America is wanting to step back as a world leader by denouncing existing relationships. In the past four years, it has thrown out long-standing trade alliances, refused to sign any agreements recognising and managing climate change, has isolated countries such as Turkey (a country that has long been a strategic point for the USA), and stepped away from military alliances.

It has now formed closer alliances with Russia. It's attacking Asia and Europe with trade tariffs and has recently asserted its position along with Russia (and Sudan and Israel) as the only countries not to recognise the International Criminal Court...... today, in fact, it strongly denounced the capacity to bring to justice international crime.

Countries such as my own are recognising the shift in the American view towards its allies and its global role. Australia, for the first time, now instead operates international military operations with China. Australia has recognised China as a more stable trading partner with a responsible program around Carbon emissions, and less erratic foreign policy.

While Americans domestically may understand where they are heading, outside of America we are becoming increasingly bereft of what the USA is as an international entity. The appearance to those outside of USA is a country wanting to retreat within isolationist, nationalist programs at the expense of international accords.

But whats the view from within America?

It would appear that America is wanting to step back as a world leader by denouncing existing relationships.

No, that's just Trump. Alone.
(Not about everything -- * see below -- but about some things)

Actually alone. Even most all of his administration tries to reduce, block, reverse this attacking old allies like Germany and Canada (Canada?!? of all nations???), and they work to undo the damage Trump causes all the time.

The Republican party is overwhelmingly in favor of old U.S. allies, and distrusts Russia.

It really is just Trump. By himself. Quite often.

Most Americans distrust Putin, and well they should. Putin is not a popular figure here, because we have heard too many facts and too much information about him.

I'd guess that even most Americans know that Russian poisoned ex spies in Britain, and that this was a "chemical attack" as worded in the news.

------------
* -- But in contrast, the issues in trade agreements are far more mixed and interesting, and Trump does indeed have widespread agreement that the U.S. did not correctly negotiate some old trade agreements.)

 

[Halbhh]

It would appear that America is wanting to step back as a world leader by denouncing existing relationships. In the past four years, it has thrown out long-standing trade alliances, refused to sign any agreements recognising and managing climate change, has isolated countries such as Turkey (a country that has long been a strategic point for the USA), and stepped away from military alliances.

It has now formed closer alliances with Russia. It's attacking Asia and Europe with trade tariffs and has recently asserted its position along with Russia (and Sudan and Israel) as the only countries not to recognise the International Criminal Court...... today, in fact, it strongly denounced the capacity to bring to justice international crime.

Countries such as my own are recognising the shift in the American view towards its allies and its global role. Australia, for the first time, now instead operates international military operations with China. Australia has recognised China as a more stable trading partner with a responsible program around Carbon emissions, and less erratic foreign policy.

While Americans domestically may understand where they are heading, outside of America we are becoming increasingly bereft of what the USA is as an international entity. The appearance to those outside of USA is a country wanting to retreat within isolationist, nationalist programs at the expense of international accords.

But whats the view from within America?

Another part of what you say is really interesting, and of deeper importance even -- that America has a certain valuable role in the world, and is currently not doing it.

One novelist here famously reused the phrasing last century of America as the "Last Best Hope" (echoing the great wording of Abraham Lincoln) -- meaning as I take it that if people of different ethnicities and viewpoints cannot get along even in America, land of freedom and the rule of law, the nation of immigrants, where everyone is held to be equal in the ultimate way, with rights and as the ideal...then....how could other nations ever expect to do better in the long run....

Well...we should not place our most ultimate hope in men.

Ultimately, the only true Last Best Hope is Christ Jesus, and what He taught, and nothing else, for man on Earth.

 

[Halbhh]

America has taken a step back from arrangements in which it was being taken for advantage and which were steadily helping to erode its edge. It is a kind of selfishness to put America First but also to some extent a reality check for the rest of us. European NATO has not been paying its way in NATO for instance. Turkey has not been a real ally since Erdogan came to power and so its membership of NATO is a Cold War Legacy in my view that adds little real value.



America defines both Russia and China as rivals in military practice and plans its defence strategy with these two powers as potential threats. Also the internal dynamics of American politics have made it impossible to form closer ties with Russia even though there was much to be gained from this in the Middle East for instance. America does hold its own to account and not being a member of the ICC gives it a freedom as a Sovereign Actor against countries which say they are members but ignore its rulings in practice.



China is polluting far more intensely than America and its green talk is long overdue. It accounts for 30% of global CO2 emissions by itself!!! Practice has yet to catch up with words.
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

BUt it could be argued that the Chinese leadership are being far cleverer than the Americans talking the language of globalisation while in practice operating a China first policy that seems to be working very effectively in closing the gap on the USA and undermining the trust of its allies.



America has always been isolationist in cultural terms and unable to read the texts of other countries narratives except on its own terms. The plain fact is that it is a rich country that is mainly self sufficient in all that matters and does not really need the rest of us. That it grew so powerful that it could run the world after WW2 without endangering that domestic tranquillity and prosperity is the remarkable thing. Now it feels that the world may in fact be undermining what it has.

That said it is better to keep America involved than for it to withdraw into itself. In the nuclear age isolationism is not a real option and American peace is contingent on global peace.

Good observations, but the last sentence is not really the case I think. America probably could not keep out in practice (at least not today, because of psychology), but in practical terms of the being-able it could easily simply be powerful and neutral and ignore war overseas if it chose too, for instance by deterrence and the ability to shoot down missles it already has. Of course a neutrality would require not reacting overly when some other nation sinks a ship with Americans on it...which has often provoked America quite easily in the past. But if America were truly determined to stay out of a world war, even letting allies get harmed, then if could effectively do so, and would not be really practically attackable in a really serious way, past provocations on small scales of killing hundreds or a few thousands at most, not at the current time. So a real isolationism (not just nominal) could be done, after all. I mention this because it's a real and intriguing possibility, if enough change happened in views over the next 5 or 15 years. Of course, even with isolationism ascendent, still an isolationist president would also be required. I sometimes wonder about the next world war, if we might indeed be able to stay largely out. I wouldn't bet on it though.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Trade deficits have nothing to do with federal borrowing.

Is there a Relationship Between Our Trade Deficit and Our National Debt?

Yes there is.

"So how do our trade deficits add to the national debt? One way is that many products, especially consumer products, which were previously made in the U. S., are now made in China or other Asian countries, so we are importing these products instead of exporting them to other countries. The offshoring of manufacturing of so many products has resulted in the loss of 5.8 million American manufacturing jobs and the closure of over 57,000 manufacturing firms. These American workers and companies paid taxes that provided revenue to our government, so now we have less tax revenue to pay for the benefits and public assistance for the unemployed and underemployed."

The result is that we are borrowing to continue paying these benefits, thus the debt.

 

[com7fy8]

It would appear that America is wanting to step back as a world leader by denouncing existing relationships.

It can seem that people think this.

I would say Donald wants to rule the world, but not how America has been trying to lead.

If Russia is still being pressed with sanctions and Donald has not opposed these, this to me means neither Donald nor the U.S. is trying to get comfy with Russia. However, I think we have been told, Donald is said to not be pushing for sanctions like a number of political people would recommend. But I see his interest in Russia could be business gain.

America, then, could still want to lead the world, but at less expense to herself. So - - she would want to reduce how other countries use U.S. military without paying for it. And she wants trade in which she is doing more exporting.

So, withdrawing from the situations could be meant to push other countries to pay for how American military serves in their countries, plus push countries to make trade more balanced. And if this is included in Donald's strategy, it could take a while before certain countries give in to the pressure to pay and buy American.

And my opinion in general is that people can make a policy or program succeed or they can bring it down by not cooperating with it. Like this, ones can make Donald's things into a problem, or ones can adjust and learn how to make at least certain items work well. But, of course, ones with a prejudiced political agenda can rotely support whatever means their party gets credit.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All I see is people will be paying more for things. And the national debt getting hire. Before a Demacrat comes back and fixes another Republican caused nightmare.

I would welcome the Dems back in power. Interest rates will rise along with inflation and I'll make more money on my investments.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Where is the US going?

Hopefully back to being a sovereign nation.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Is there a Relationship Between Our Trade Deficit and Our National Debt?

Oh yeah.

"So how do our trade deficits add to the national debt? One way is that many products, especially consumer products, which were previously made in the U. S., are now made in China or other Asian countries, so we are importing these products instead of exporting them to other countries. The offshoring of manufacturing of so many products has resulted in the loss of 5.8 million American manufacturing jobs and the closure of over 57,000 manufacturing firms. These American workers and companies paid taxes that provided revenue to our government, so now we have less tax revenue to pay for the benefits and public assistance for the unemployed and underemployed."

(1) To reiterate the point, which the article you post doesn't argue against, the trade deficit is not related to federal debt. This is why I posted the methods used to calculate the current account deficit, which has to do with trade flows, not federal borrowing. I note neither you nor the article you are using can argue against the actual methods used in calculating the current account. Using your reasoning, we could equivalently say that the US is running a capital account surplus, and that this too must be because of federal borrowing. Of course, that doesn't seem to make sense. Are you also able to explain the corollary: how federal borrowing causes a capital account surplus? (note: if you're running a current account deficit, ie. a trade deficit, then by definition you're running a capital account surplus). Are you also able to explain how some other countries (such as Japan) are able to maintain a current account surplus yet have more national debt (at least in terms of % of GDP) than the US? Are you also able to explain periods of time where the US was running a current account surplus yet had to resort of federal borrowing (eg, 1980-1982, 1990-1991?

Of course not. It's a nice theory to think that federal borrowing is somehow related to the current account deficit, but it's just a theory.

(2) So we have a few things and counter examples which the article you post cannot explain (and does not attempt to explain) which should be sufficient to demonstrate that the trade deficit isn't related to the federal debt. But further, to try to establish the argument made in the article we would also require more information. You would have to show that tax revenues would have been higher had production not shifted in the ways mentioned in the article, that those venues would have been sufficiently high enough to fund the federal debt, and that federal debt would not continue to outpace federal spending (I mean, why can't federal spending outpace federal revenues and there also be a current account surplus?). He would also have to account for economic growth, and thus increases in tax revenues, in other sectors (which he doesn't do), net effects in manufacturing, gains in productivity, increases in GDP, etc.. I'm probably leaving out a bunch of analysis that would have to be done for the simple reason that the author of the article seemingly isn't aware of his argument's problems.

Call me skeptical, but I don't think the author of that article can prove it anyway. In short, because the federal debt is unrelated to current account surpluses or deficits, it's very difficult to try to establish that there happens to be a unique case/relationship between the two in the case of the US. The article you post has a paragraph, which doesn't qualify for analysis. It's easy to concoct a story that seems to make sense, but in reality it's harder to prove, especially when the two variables in question have no necessary relationship.

 

[Kaon]

It would appear that America is wanting to step back as a world leader by denouncing existing relationships. In the past four years, it has thrown out long-standing trade alliances, refused to sign any agreements recognising and managing climate change, has isolated countries such as Turkey (a country that has long been a strategic point for the USA), and stepped away from military alliances.

It has now formed closer alliances with Russia. It's attacking Asia and Europe with trade tariffs and has recently asserted its position along with Russia (and Sudan and Israel) as the only countries not to recognise the International Criminal Court...... today, in fact, it strongly denounced the capacity to bring to justice international crime.

Countries such as my own are recognising the shift in the American view towards its allies and its global role. Australia, for the first time, now instead operates international military operations with China. Australia has recognised China as a more stable trading partner with a responsible program around Carbon emissions, and less erratic foreign policy.

While Americans domestically may understand where they are heading, outside of America we are becoming increasingly bereft of what the USA is as an international entity. The appearance to those outside of USA is a country wanting to retreat within isolationist, nationalist programs at the expense of international accords.

But whats the view from within America?

America has been under textbook destabilization for the past 25 years. That is the end-game for America. The only reason why it has taken so long is because America got a boost from a destabilized USSR. But, now that there is no more economic incentive unique to America (i.e. globalization,) there is only one direction for a nation built on political and financial credit to go.