And offensively worst content.

Seriously. I can listen for about 20 mins max, excusing the economic and/or market errors.

Even anticipation of Russ Roberts’ commentary is not enough to keep me on the dial.

Russ, why must you contribute to National Socialist Radio?

But what are the Chinese getting in return for all this stuff? The dollar? That's just a promise to the Chinese that they can come here and get stuff from our economy. (bad usage, 'our economy' but you get the idea)

But what stuff can they get? What are we making for the Chinese? Jack.

Eventually the Chinese are going to realize that they can consume their own products. We have nothing to sell them. The dollar is an empty promise. We're going to be screwed.

Does any of this conflict with your claims in that latter to NPR? Am I wrong?

And offensively worst content.

Seriously. I can listen for about 20 mins max, excusing the economic and/or market errors.

Even anticipation of Russ Roberts’ commentary is not enough to keep me on the dial.

Russ, why must you contribute to National Socialist Radio?

But what are the Chinese getting in return for all this stuff? The dollar? That's just a promise to the Chinese that they can come here and get stuff from our economy. (bad usage, 'our economy' but you get the idea)

But what stuff can they get? What are we making for the Chinese? Jack.

Eventually the Chinese are going to realize that they can consume their own products. We have nothing to sell them. The dollar is an empty promise. We're going to be screwed.

Does any of this conflict with your claims in that latter to NPR? Am I wrong?

I do know that the entire world can't retire on entitlement to U.S. tax revenue, not even the entire Chinese population. I'd like to see a deeper analysis of these deficits than “trade is good”. Sure trade is good, but trade deficits are about a lot more than trade.

Wouldn’t that be expected to lower the USD purchasing power abroad? And wouldn’t that result in a tangible effect on our consumption of imported goods? And doesn’t that mean current account deficits aren’t TOTALLY irrelevant when applied to different nations which use different currencies (as opposed to a professor and university who both use the USD)?

When I buy an anvil made in China, the Chinese company that made that anvil only has pieces of paper, the value of which is very much dependent upon the actions and whims of politicians. I, on the other hand, get an anvil that is useful and practical, and is valuable to me for as long as I value owning an anvil.

It is obvious to even a dolt like myself that it is not the nations buying, it is individuals or businesses that are doing the buying. Yeah they are using the national currencies, but so what? That should ensure closer and friendlier relations, not hostile ones.

And, in that aspect I would hope those individual transactions would be balanced, in that if I pay $100 for your goods, I get $100 of goods, and you get $100 of my money. That is balance that is natural, and necessary to maintain trade and increase prosperity in both our nations. But, just for the sake of argument, say I pay $100 but feel I was cheated and didn’t receive full value; I can use the legitimate assistance of government (one of the legitimate constitutional functions of government) to try and recoup my perceived losses, but how does the imbalance I have complained of reflect on the national fiscal well being of the two nations? If nothing else I can just never deal with the cheat again and rely on that government to perform another of its legitimate functions to warn other people who would deal with the same cheat.

But, if increased prosperity and wealth is the goal, what sense would it make to systematically and habitually cheat any person one deals with in a market?

I've always appreciated Cafe Hayek's posts on current account balances, because I agree that people do get inappropriately worked up trade deficits – not realizing the benefits of the trade deficit to our standard living – and the basis of our trade deficit in underlying factor and productivity differences.

But there are rapid correction concerns that I don't think are entirely irrelevant either. When a household or business builds up an unsustainable level of debt it can have disastrous consequences. The correction itself IS the market working – so Morici's concern shouldn't necessarily be that the market isn't working. But it's not wrong to be concerned about the problems associated with sharp corrections, any more than it is wrong for a household to be concerned when they realize they're overleveraged.

Not everyone was around to experience the signals and pain during previous corrections but many were around. Let's not blunt the signals nor the pains of corrections by using collective policies that create moral hazzards. Experiencing pains are very much needed events that signal-missing participants need to feel and for allowing a market to operate as it should.

One should not then be concerned with the correction. One should be concerned with the causes of the circumstances that led to the rapid correction. Perhaps if the government did not preach a "spend, spend, spend" mentality, and actually provided more incentives for savings, we wouldn't have this discussion.

If foreign governments want to hold large amounts of dollars and create the potential problem you cite, they can do that regardless of the US policies or consumer behavior that might influence the trade balance.