Wednesday, April 20, 2005

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/04/macro_econoblog.html

One thing no one seems to be noticing with all this talk of trade deficits is that US exports are at record high levels, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP.

How would we account for record highs in both imports and exports? The simplest explanation is that the global economy is booming, but no one seems to be saying that.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

http://www.roubiniglobal.com/setser/archives/2005/04/economy_strong.html#comments

"I have always thought the argument that attributed the widening trade deficit to the absence of growth abroad was a bit deceptive, for the simple reason that in aggregate, growth abroad has been quite strong."

We don't trade with the world in aggregate. We trade with our trading partners:

Export partners: Canada 23.4%, Mexico 13.5%, Japan 7.2%, UK 4.7%, Germany 4%

Import partners: Canada 17.4%, China 12.5%, Mexico 10.7%, Japan 9.3%, Germany 5.3%

(2003 figures from CIA World Factbook)

Nations with above average growth represent a small percentage of US foreign trade; nations with below average growth a high percentage, Hence, a widening trade deficit driven by strong US growth.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/04/did-he-really-risk-nuclear-war.html#comments

To me this looks like a non-issue. Parsing Clark's quote, it merely states that he and some other people in the administration would have recommended - to Reagan - the use of force. Presumably Reagan would have ignored that recommendation.

Nowhere does the article say that Reagan threatened war in response to a Soviet crackdown in Poland. The closest it comes is this: "President Reagan's White House made clear the U.S. would not be acquiescent again."

Not being acquiescent again could mean any number of things.

Newsmax probably just wanted an attention grabbing headline.