Silly Stats

by Don Boudreaux on February 14, 2008

in Balance of Payments, Trade

One of my professors from my undergraduate days at Nicholls State University, Oscar Varela (who now teaches at U.T. – El Paso) recently published this fine letter in the El Paso Times:

Regarding
your opinion in “Trade deficit: China keeps beating up on U.S.”
(12.24.2007), the U.S. trade deficit with China reflects the voluntary
preferences by U.S. residents for Chinese goods. Efforts to punish China for the U.S. trade deficit would in the end punish these U.S. residents.   I (and others in El Paso) have a growing trade deficit with you, as every day I buy your paper but never sell you a thing. You are not beating me up, as my purchases are freely made without coercion. Would
you support any efforts to punish you for my deficit through some
government action that would restrict my pleasure in buying and reading
the El Paso Times?  

Oscar Varela

And relatedly, I sent the following letter today to the New York Times:

Every month you report
Commerce Department figures on the U.S. trade deficit with individual
countries.  For example, we learn today that last year "[t]he trade
deficit with China continued to rise, jumping by 10.2 percent to $256.3
billion" ("U.S. Trade Deficit Drops in 2007," February 14).

Before
again reporting such figures, your reporters (and the Commerce
Department) should ask a fundamental question: In this world of
extensive multilateral trade and investment, of what conceivable
relevance is a measure of the volume of good and services trade between
any two countries?  America’s "trade deficit" with China is as relevant
as is your "trade deficit" with, say, your columnist Maureen Dowd.  I’m
sure that every year you buy more from her than she buys from you.  I’m
also sure that you’re not bothered by this "deficit" – and for good
reason: in a world of multilateral trade, no two entities are likely to
have so-called "balanced" trade with each other.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

100 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 50 comments }

Al February 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Don-

Are you saying that the NY Times is paying Maureen Dowd more than she’s worth? This may explain recent troubling patterns in their stock price . . .

John Kozy February 14, 2008 at 5:45 pm

"the U.S. trade deficit with China reflects the voluntary preferences by U.S. residents for Chinese goods." No it doesn't. Many would prefer to buy American if American was available. Take toys for instance.

John S. February 14, 2008 at 5:47 pm

In other posts on the issue of trade, both you and Russ Roberts have said (I paraphrase) that Massachussetts is not concerned about its trade deficit with California. I wanted to provide a counterexample. Until recently, the state I live in did not have a lottery, while all of the surrounding states did. In the run-up to the referendum, we were constantly reminded of all the money we were losing, because our gamblers were forced to buy their lottery tickets out of state.

A lot of people seemed to buy this argument! The lottery was approved, and our trade gap with surrounding states was closed.

muirgeo February 14, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Here's my question regarding trade.

If a company were able to find lower labor cost by putting a factory in a country that allowed for child slave labor would you be opposed to shopping at its American stores, Slavemart, which sell products for even less then Walmart?

I have standards and my country has standards. When multinational companies pit one county against another, one state against another, one country against another that truly is a race to the bottom that puts corporations needs ahead of the needs of people and society.

At some point you draw a line and say this IS NOT about free trade or competitive markets its about exploitation. Its about taking advantage of a society that held itself to high standards and set itself up to be the best ever only to be exploited by those who think the rules should not apply to them.

I am for "free trade" if its fair trade but at some point the line is crossed and profits are put ahead of peoples rights. Professing to be for liberal economics/politics and condoning trade with oppressive communist regimes seems some what inconsistent.

James February 14, 2008 at 6:49 pm

John Kozy,

American toys are unavailable because American toymakers are unwilling to sell toys at the prices of Chinese toys. Why punish Chinese workers for the stubbornness of American corporations?

Kevin S. February 14, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Muirgeo,
Why do you hate little children in third world coutries? Do you not want them to eat? or learn a skill that they can market for more money in their life ahead? Why is it OK for children in third world countries to be slaves to their parents but not to a corporation?

Oh, that's right, you would rather my government steal my money, give to a foreign govenment who may or may not buy a few sacks of rice for its people. Personally, I would rather buy something they produce and I can afford. We are both better off than the alternative of forsaking new shoes/clothes/electronics if produced here because I couldn't afford it. How does that help the american worker, the foriegn worker, or me if I can't afford US made products?

Nathan Benedict February 14, 2008 at 7:33 pm

"If a company were able to find lower labor cost by putting a factory in a country that allowed for child slave labor would you be opposed to shopping at its American stores, Slavemart, which sell products for even less then Walmart?"

Do you not understand the critical distinction between voluntariness and involuntariness?

When a Chinese person works for 12 hours a day in an unsafe sweatshop for pennies per hour to make cheap toys, he does so because he has determined that it is the best option available to him. That is is not a very good best option is irrelevant–all of his other options, such as begging on the street, or working 15 hours a day on an even less safe farm back in his village–are worse.

So I feel no guilt buying products made in sweatshops, or even by child labor. In fact, to boycott these products would leave these individuals worse off.

By contrast, when a laborer is enslaved, his job is no longer his best available option. If it were, he would do it voluntarily, with no enslavement necessary. Thus, products built by slave labor are no longer contributing to the increasing welfare of the world's poor, but rather diminishing it.

And contrary to what you say in your next paragraph, the result of corporate competition is not a "race to the bottom," but rather to the top. Americans today work in safer environments, are more productive, and earn higher wages than Americans 100 years ago because the relentless demand for efficiency creating by competitive, capitalistic markets has created enough wealth that we can now afford luxuries like workplace safety, 8 hour days, and sending our children to schools rather than the factories. The same process is happening in China today. Buying from Walmart expedites it; boycotts in the name of fairness and non-exploitation retard it.

muirgeo February 14, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Kevin,

Maybe we should have the communist take charge of our country. Then people can be forced to take what ever job they could get and our labor cost would make us competitive again.

Maybe we should roll back all pollution standards , outlaw unions, free speech and government dissent and even make salvery and child labor legal here again so the American work force will be more competitive with the Chinese work force.

Sam Grove February 14, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Muirgeo is fond of the strawman.

Sam Grove February 14, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Does refusing to trade with other countries impact their poor starving workers in any positive way?

Show us the stats.

Sam Grove February 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm

If we don't trade with them, then our government will give them aid.

Ah, that's better…as long as the ruler proclaims for socialism.

Methinks February 14, 2008 at 10:32 pm

John S., your lottery example is not really the same thing. What you're describing is competition for gambling dollars, not a trade deficit.

Methinks February 14, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Way to completely miss Kevin's point by 100 miles and jump straight to your usual psychotic hyperbole, Muirgeo.

Maybe we should have the communist take charge of our country.

Don't worry, there are two running neck-in-neck right now. Your dream is not far from realization.

Sam Grove February 14, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Modern liberalism (socialism) is all about gesturing to show your compassion without regard for the real world effects of your gestures.

Thus it is better for slaves to also be poor, than to do anything through trade that might actually improve their lot.

Of course, to a socialist, working for any 'capitalist' is slavery, whether one does so voluntarily or not.

It's not about the object of their pity, but about how they feel about themselves.

Python February 14, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Does anyone here think that China was more free before we started trading with them?

FreedomLover February 15, 2008 at 1:39 am

Sam Grove is not the REAL Sam Grove who is a socialist.

Gil February 15, 2008 at 1:41 am

"Maybe we should have the communist take charge of our country."

I think muirgeo meant as in a government in the vein of the Chinese government. But, of course, the modern Chinese government would better qualify as a Fascist-style of government. Hell! Hong Kong's wealthy were welcoming the Chinese takeover with open arms! And, I'm sure many would agree that a Fascist government would be an improvement if less civil freedoms was traded for increased economic freedoms, especially if Socialist and Trade Union activists were rountinely suppressed and thrown into jails.

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 6:24 am

Damn methinks,

You beat me to it!

"Maybe we should have the communist take charge of our country."
muirduck

"Don't worry, there are two running neck-in-neck right now. Your dream is not far from realization.

Posted by: Methinks | Feb 14, 2008 10:39:47 PM"

Russ Nelson February 15, 2008 at 9:08 am

''I am for "free trade" if its fair trade '' …. more quacking from our local socialist waterfoul. Everyone should be "free" to make the choices muirduck agrees with.

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 9:52 am

This thread illustrates why I am addicted to reading the Cafe Hayek. Clear logic, well expressed, on subjects that we deal with on a daily basis.

I may not always agree 100% with the personal sentiments expressed, but the meat is always done a perfect medium rare and the side dishes a delicious compliment.

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 10:03 am

Gil,
It is good to be loyal to your compatriot, but:

"Maybe we should have the communist take charge of our country."

"I think muirgeo meant as in a government in the vein of the Chinese government."//Are you certain sure that muirduck knew what he meant? There is no historical documentation of that ever being the case.//

"But, of course, the modern Chinese government would better qualify as a Fascist-style of government. Hell! Hong Kong's wealthy were welcoming the Chinese takeover with open arms!//Can't say for sure this is the case with the Hong Kong wealthy; but, when you find you're going to be thrown without choice into the Grizzly's cave it pays to make up your mind to be very nice to the Grizzly. Surviability demands that.//

And, I'm sure many would agree that a Fascist government would be an improvement if less civil freedoms was traded for increased economic freedoms, especially if Socialist and Trade Union activists were rountinely suppressed and thrown into jails.//But, you see, Gil, there was and are no specific socialist unions in Red China because it was all communist; which also meant/means there is no need for trade unions, it is already a "worker's paradise".//

Thank you very much.

Posted by: Gil | Feb 15, 2008 1:41:16 AM

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 10:05 am

Sorry, the "Thank you very much" above was mine, not Gil's.

I doubt Gil will be grateful for the educational clarification.

Thank you very much.

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 10:16 am

Addressing muirduck's concern for the kiddies in foreign countries being ill treated in "slave labor" camps, I think of how disgusted I have been with the Baby Boomers behavior and the steadily worsening of the behavior of their children and their children, etc.; and I reflect on the wisdom offered by an old friend of mine from 15 years ago.

His idea, an excellent and very workable idea, to solve two problems with one stroke was to teach young children to read and write at the basic level by age six. Then take them from their parents and put them into labor camps to be rented, at cost, out to any employer who had needs, and this plan to last until the youngster reached age 18. At age 18, those that demonstrate an ability to pour piss out of a boot without having to read the instructions printed on the sole would be sent back home to parents that would then see to it that they received formal education in schools of their choice.

This plan would (a) get the screaming, whiney, self centered little bastards out of our faces when we go out into the world to shop, play, or work; (b) it would teach the children a work ethic and self discipline, and, (c) it would solve the pricey labor costs that drive business overseas to cheaper resources.

Now what's not to like about that?

Kevin S. February 15, 2008 at 10:30 am

"Maybe we should roll back all pollution standards , outlaw unions, free speech and government dissent and even make salvery and child labor legal here again so the American work force will be more competitive with the Chinese work force."

Perhaps a rollback of some pollution standards, unforced union participation and allowance for child labor would make the U.S. more competitive. But only at the expense of U.S. workers who would have less cash to spend, and at the expense of foreign workers who will revert to making pennies a day instead of dollars a day. My preference however, is to give foreign workers an opportunity to improve their lot, U.S. workers opportunity to improve their lot (by finding work that requires a higher degree of skill and pay), and for all to have access to more "stuff."

Faced with the requirement to apply today's U.S. labor/environmental standards in a foreign land, U.S. corporations simply would not invest in those countries. Restating my original question, how does this help?

Sam Grove February 15, 2008 at 10:33 am

At least it would get them out of government indoctrination centers.

We keep ours at home, thank you.

muirgeo February 15, 2008 at 11:46 am

Here's another economist view of why the trade deficit matters. Note this article was written in 2006.

He explains why it matters and predicts the outcome we are seeing unfold before us. While other economist continue to tell us to the present day how the trade deficit is a figment of our imagination.

From Der Spiegel

Incidentally, the commission that former US President Bill Clinton created to investigate the negative balance of trade concluded in clear terms that the government has to do whatever it can to put an end to the growing disparity between imports and exports. It demanded that the public give up its optimism and return to realism, that people start saving again and that the state reduce its imports in order to prevent too hard a crash landing.

None of that has been done. In fact, what is being done is the opposite of everything the experts recommended. Debt is growing, imports are increasing and an optimism now lacking every basis in reality has become official state policy. Lester Thurow, a member of Clinton's commission, draws the sober conclusion that no one will believe the US balance of trade could produce a crisis "until it happens."

T Rich February 15, 2008 at 11:48 am

A brief story to illustrate the excellent points made by Kevin S. and Nathan Benedict regarding the very important issue of 'next best alternative' (aka reality).

I was in a Bloomingdale's shopping for Persian rugs. Another customer, in a tone to show how compassionate and humane she was, asked the salesperson (who was obviously from south central Asia) whether he could 'guarantee' that there was no child labor content in these rugs ("gee aren't I great!")

The salesman didn't miss a beat in saying something to the effect of, "on the contrary, I guarantee that children worked on this beautiful rug. The only other choice for them to earn money would be to carry a Kalashnikov in the army." When the woman said, "well, I just can't buy that rug," my new hero said, "I respect your decision, but please know your decision has consequences." Brilliant – I could hear the air coming out of her balloon from 20 feet away.

I wonder where that salesman got his econ degree. Hardknock U is my guess.

Randy February 15, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Muirgeo,

From the article;

"Consumption without production, imports without exports, growth on credit — these are all things that can't last in this world."

Growth on credit and consumption without production are precisely the same point. They are a problem. But don't think that production requires factories pumping out trinkets. We live in a luxury economy and luxuries are what we produce, and we produce a lot of luxuries. The factories of today are universities, medical centers, motion picture studios, home design shops, information technology centers, on and on. So we do produce, and the problem therefore boils down to growth on credit. In other words, a government spending money that it doesn't have – and I'm all for putting an end to that.

muirgeo February 15, 2008 at 12:18 pm

This is not the only economics blog I read. Plenty of others exist which when compared on issues such as the trade deficit show me they seem to have thought this through and have made more persuasive arguments as to the downside of the trade deficit and the inappropriateness of assuming all trade is equal.

Sam Grove February 15, 2008 at 12:28 pm

It's not the trade deficit per se. It's the strength of the economy vs the printing of money. Other factors being more or less equal, or stable, the trade deficit means little. The trouble, of course, is that other factors are not stable.

Randy February 15, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Muirgeo,

I won't argue that there is no downside to some from free trade. My argument is that this is a good thing because it forces people to compete.

Sam Grove February 15, 2008 at 12:31 pm

IOW, pointing to the trade deficit is misdirection.

Sam Grove February 15, 2008 at 12:36 pm

This sub-heading at the site linked by muigeo tells it all: Economics for Democratic and Open Societies

IOW, economics for the purpose of 'managing' people. Not unlike economics as practiced in the U.S.

Mcwop February 15, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Ok Murigeo, the trade deficit has a downside, and is super evil. Then please share your solution. But please refrain from senseless generalities in your solution such as ending exploitation. Should we raise interest rates to cause a recession that reduces consumption? Should we try to force China to remove their peg to the dollar? Should the government stop constantly increasing spending faster than inflation? Tariffs? What? Tax people to the point they have no discretionary income?

Do understand that each solution has consequences for us and for people across the oceans.

Craig Howard February 15, 2008 at 12:46 pm

"The lottery was approved, and our trade gap with surrounding states was closed."

I suspect your politicians were more worried about all that lottery tax revenue they were losing rather any trade deficit.

Sam Grove February 15, 2008 at 12:56 pm

muirgeo,

I hope you are aware that the economics discussed here are not of the mainstream.

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 12:59 pm

T Rich,

Glad you broached the subject of compassion and its consequences.

Let me lay some ground work, bearing in mind that my math is not necessarily my strong point.

I have learned to make certain quick calculations in my head when I am confronted with suspect statistics or claims. And, I am always surprised when these suspect stats are laid out in public via the press that no one ever seems to be on the same page as I am and never asks the logical questions.

For instance, I read a report of a news conference in which the basketball player Wilt Chamberlin at age 40 was giving forth on his volleyball efforts, his conditioning, and his past life. In this conference he made the claim that he had made love to over 20,000 women. My head went immediately to the possiblities of the math. So I did some quick calculations as could have any reporter or participant in the conference. Let's give old Wilt credit for being, something he wasn't, a good looking stud and allow him sexual beginnings at age 15. To complete his claim, that would mean that he had to shaft 2.19 girls/women a day, 365 days a year, with no time off and all other activities sandwiched in between those encounters. Patently absurd on the face of it, yet none spoke up.

In his anti-gun tirades Billary Clinton constantly claimed that 1,300 children a week were being killed through gun violence. No press member ever challenged him on it. 1,300 a week times 52 and we have a claim that says 67,600 children a year are being gunned down.

A number higher than the entire total from the Vietnam conflict our participation in which lasted from the outster of the French in the late 50s to 1975, approximately 16 years. 67,600 a year times 16 and we have 1,081,600 children slaughtered in gun violence in America while only approximately 58,000 troops were lost in combat. A number I believe that would be noticed by each of us personally, yet it was not so.

I have also learned to put sums money as spoken of by politicians into proper perspective;
1 sec = $1
1hr = $60
1 day = $86,400
11.57 days = $1,000,000
1 yr = $31,547,104
31.7 yrs = 1,000,000,000
This tidbit of knowledge allows me to grasp the enormity of difference between mere millions and a billion.

Then I like to remember that in 2006 the median household income was $48,000. Given that the total tax burden on a household is approximately 50%, that means each single household pays $24,000 a year in taxes.

Now we know that those taxes are all collected differently, some are excise taxes, some are voluntary income taxes, and some are voluntary socialis security taxes. But that is no matter for where I go in my reasoning.

Each average household sends approximately an annual $24,000 to the federal government.

Now that being true, divide $1,000,000 by $24,000 and you get 41.7 years it takes one average household to send in that $1,000,000 if his input was solely dedicated to paying off that $1,000,000. Or, we could say that it would take 41.7 average household's input for one year to do the same.

A Stockcar race driver, Dale Ernhardt, died and left a lot of fans grieving. A big funeral was arranged and lo and behold it was arranged for a flyover of military jets as a show of honor. I know from association that any time the military puts up 4 or 5 jets for any kind of reason it will cost the taxpayers approximately a million dollars.

So here we have a million bucks squandered that has to come from somewhere.

My mind goes to this scenario: A young man at age twenty is approached by government thugs and is told, "This $1,000,000 is your debt. You will pay it off." That young man is facing an entire lifetime of productive labor to pay for a stupid squandering of his fruits of labor on a flyover at a funeral of a man he never met and probably wouldn't have given a shit for. Government has made him an economic slave.

And where is the compassion for that young man?

Each person in the USA that had a family member, loved one, or relative that was killed in the 9/11 attacks recieved an average of $1,000,000 each as a gift from the U.S. government. Without checking for strict accuracy, I believe that total would be about 3,500 deaths which equates to what in dollars at a million each?

How many other hard working people in this country were made instant economic slaves purely to pay off those billions that went to people they had absolutely zero relationship to.

In 1993, the Clinton administration gifted Archer Daniels Midland with $600 million to advertise their products overseas. In addition to that the Popcorn Council of America also was gifted with $300 million for the same reason. Folks that is $900 million that some collection of poor taxpaying smucks will have to payoff because those entities couldn't pay for their advertising out of their own profits.

But our collectivist government says from them who can to those who need, and ADM and the PCOA obviously were needy.

So in my terms that means 37,500 households get to labor their entire working lives in order to pay that off. Government is so good!

There are those that simply can not understand that once the pluralistic democracy has given a organization authority to take some, it will inevitably take it all through encroachment and expansion of defintions of need and source.

There is an answer for my own one man rebellion against government. The sheer outrageous squandering of the working man's fruits of labor on things he would never ever put a penny into is not a new phenomenon, it is what an entrenched government does; and, those squanderings are being directed by people no more capable or intelligent, but more morally dengenerate, than the worker that created the wealth.

Where is the compassion for those economic slaves from the muirducks of the world? Why aren't they railing against the injustice being forced on their own people? Think of the poor American children being forced to grow up in slave households, learning slave attitudes.

Just thought I'd lay that out there.

Thank you very much.

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Ooops,

There is an answer for my own one man rebellion against government.

Should read:

That is an answer for my own one man rebellion against government.

Randy February 15, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Vidyohs,

Progressives seem to have a sort of genetic bypass circuitry which allows them to live with their cognitive dissonance about money. Money that other people have is bad, but money that they have is good. Therefore its not a bad thing to take bad money and turn it into good money. Copy? I know, it doesn't really make any sense to me either, but it seems to make sense to them.

Sam Grove February 15, 2008 at 1:13 pm

But vidyohs, there are no pictures of the suffering households. Suffering the economic collectivists don't see, they don't have to feel guilt about.
That's the advantage of socialized suffering.
For them, the unseen does not exist.

muirgeo February 15, 2008 at 2:12 pm

muirgeo,

I hope you are aware that the economics discussed here are not of the mainstream.

Posted by: Sam Grove

And I'm growing convinced there is a good reason why that is the case.

Henri Hein February 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Nathan Benedict:

Well put, right on the money.

All free-trade enemies, please read Nathan's entry again. It's a succinct statement of the advantages to free trade.

"Buying from Walmart expedites it [the 'race to the top' process]; boycotts in the name of fairness and non-exploitation retard it"

Fabio Franco February 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I agree with the classical liberal outlook for trade. But in China's case, other, more complicated factors might be at work. Read, for instance, J. R. Nyquist, who is an expert on geopolitics. He digs deep into the Chinese psyche and culture and warns us that there is a vengeance brewing. See his article "CHINA'S MILITARY STRATEGY":
"Learning from capitalism and drawing foreign capital to China would be the basis for China’s future military superiority. … Why is China building so many ships and guns and planes? Everyone assumes that China is building up to attack Taiwan. “But China’s military advances are no longer just about attacking Taiwan,” the Wall Street Journal says…. The American mind has yet to wrap itself around the concept of a genocidal WMD assault. We watch as the Chinese prepare to slaughter us. We blink and avert our gaze."

Randy February 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm

There is a good reason, Muirgeo. Most people don't think. They just believe in whatever makes them feel safe, and it makes them feel safe to have big brother tell them what to do.

FreedomLover February 15, 2008 at 2:36 pm

The fundamental weakness in our economy is a lack of skilled workers. I.e, scientists, engineers. A woeful lack, we are importing them by the 100s of 1000s from Asia. For now it's not a crisis, but it will be in 10-20 years when you have millions of additional native-born Americans with useless liberal arts degrees. There are only so many Slavemart jobs.

FreedomLover February 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm

And contrary to what you say in your next paragraph, the result of corporate competition is not a "race to the bottom," but rather to the top. Americans today work in safer environments, are more productive, and earn higher wages than Americans 100 years ago because the relentless demand for efficiency creating by competitive, capitalistic markets has created enough wealth that we can now afford luxuries like workplace safety, 8 hour days, and sending our children to schools rather than the factories. The same process is happening in China today. Buying from Walmart expedites it; boycotts in the name of fairness and non-exploitation retard it.

Posted by: Nathan Benedict | Feb 14, 2008 7:33:24 PM

Useless arguing with the trolls. They have no knowledge of history, nor do they want to learn. They have one agenda – bring down America at all costs.

vidyohs February 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Henri Hein,

I ditto your praise for nathaniel's post.

Randy February 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm

FreedomLover,

Agreed that we could use more engineers, but I don't have any problem with those "useless" liberal arts degrees. They're the factory jobs of the luxury economy – decent jobs with decent pay. No, they don't produce anything that anybody "needs", but then, not many jobs do these days.

Clintonwasking February 15, 2008 at 3:08 pm

I recently attended a speech by Dr. David Schmidtz. The main economic issue in his speech was gains of trade. Our textbook defines trade policy as a government policy that directly influences the quantity of goods and services that a country imports or exports. Trade is an essential part of our existence and has benefited mankind more than any other aspect. Dr Shmidtze agrees that it is what keeps our society balanced. He stated that trade is the only way to become more wealthy and saves people a lot of trouble in their daily lives. Trade is also what keeps countries from killing each other because as long as a country focuses on being useful to countries around them they will have no problems. He stated just by arriving at work you are giving back to the entire community. Unemployment however cannot be stopped because there is simply not enough to be done at any given time.
I learned a lot from his speech especially on countries need for trade and how it works. I also learned not to take what I have for granted and that a lot of work goes into even the little things I have.

I was wondering if you agree with these views, and if you had any of your own on this topic, also with presidents day approaching who was or in the unlikely case is your favorite president?

Kevin S. February 15, 2008 at 4:03 pm

"…divide $1,000,000 by $24,000 and you get 41.7 years it takes one average household to send in that $1,000,000 if his input was solely dedicated to paying off that $1,000,000." vidyohs

No, no, no. You are clearly thinking like a selfish indiviudalist. The collectivist asks "would you be willing to spare 4/10 of a penny to give Mr. Earnhardt a fitting sendoff?" That doesn't sound so intrusive, does it? sarcasm/

Previous post:

Next post: