Fiction Still Drives the U.S.-China Trade Debate (contradicts my previous belief)

I found this article very interesting. A couple of people on this forum always bring up the trade deficit when talking about jobs or the economy. This article seems to directly counter their position, which I formerly thought was absolutely true, now I wonder! What do you guys think?

Fiction Still Drives the U.S.-China Trade Debate

I think there is another factor in the chart, because the job loss came first, then the economy crashed along with the value of the dollar, with the fall of the dollar, the imports increase. Not only do imports support economic activity in the U.S. there is also this angle since we are talking about China
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011...say_hello.html

What do you think John?

I think when you have your blinders on statistics can tell you anything. There are many other factors that can create the illuision the article wishes you to believe. It's true that imports create jobs.... @ home depot and wall mart. And imports impact the money in the economy. If you stop imports instantly the economy would crash. Wouldn't that tell you imports are good and stopping them are bad? Sure... if you have you blinders on.

I'm not sure, but it is something that I am now trying to figure out...


Words of wisdom from the gunsmith: "The world ain't what it seems....the moment you think you got it figured, your wrong." Scene from "The Shooter."

That article is very very flawed as is the chart. It does not rake into account things like the recession in 2008 which led to both decreased employment and a decreased imports due to no one buying anything because they are unemployed. The economy was growing before that and jobs were being created just based on economic growth and a rise in population over 20 years, not because we had a high trade deficit. There are far too many variables that were no considered in this article and for good reason, it would make the author look like a bafoon.

David, that's similar to what I was going to post earlier.
But to carry your point further: the door was opened to outsourcing decades ago, driven by increased pressure for publicly traded firms to continue to "increase shareholder value"....chasing cheap labor. Starting with manufacturing cuz it was easiest. Any ol'chinese farmer could be taught to make shoes.. Profitable companies expanded (e.g. wal-mart), people went from making the stuff to selling the stuff that was made overseas. As products and goods get a bit cheaper from increased demand (who doesn't love a $.97 notebook) leaving some extra coin in peoples pockets... hence, more to blow on more cheap stuff... causing a gradual shift from manufacturing to selling/servicing as more and more plants/factories are "re-located". Soon if you were a manufacturer, and WEREN'T moving operations overseas you were gonna die. Then someone said, "hey, those guys over in that other place know how to write code AND they sorta speak English AND they'll do it for 25 cents on the dollar". Then another guy said, "hey I bet they can answer a phone too...or read and xray...or process my invoices, all for 25 cents on the dollar". Now enter decades of cheap money (Greenspan)... and easy loans for both consumers and businesses(Sub-Prime mortgages)... more growth, more shifting...more coin left over. people were still employed because there was still plenty of "profit" moving around. people just shifted from those old jobs to new ones like "real estate brokers", "business consultants", "financial engineers", or they opened a coffee shop to sell coffee to real estate brokers, business consultants and financial engineers. We no longer MAKE anything, we're just shuffling dollars around the globe... until the money bubble popped. That's why it's been hard to get unemployment trends to reverse... cuz when there's no more money to shuffle around (except heaps of it from bailouts that only made it about as far as from D.C. to New York, none of which we could afford anyway), and there's nothing to manufacture because there's no one w/the extra coin to buy it... or you can't sell coffee because no one has the extra coin to buy it... then there's no need to hire anyone. And no one can manufacture anything here because they can't do it on 25 cents on the dollar and still afford the coffee.

So yeah, the article's not completely honest to draw a direct correlation between only employment rate and trade deficit levels in a vacuum.

I emailed the author of the article and made him aware of this thread, now lets see if he responds; either here or to me by email.