Timmah! said:
I agree that the trade deficit is a problem, but I just get sick of so many people blaming that (and everything) on Bush. It's been going on since Regan, through Bush 1, Clinton, and now Bush 2. What's a president supposed to do in this circumstance?? In a free market, the government isn't supposed to just limit imports. If all of a sudden we couldn't buy imported products, prices on everything from TVs to Microwaves to Cars would shoot up and there would be mass shortages. This would cause just as much or more problems than the existing trade deficit. Tariffs have been suggested, but that causes price increases, strained relationships with countries, etc. It's a really tough problem, and the 'catch-22' nature of the issue has made it very difficult for our political leaders to deal with it (they're damned if they do, damned if the don't). Most western 'developed' economies have a trade deficit. This comes from the fact that we have transferred over to a more service-based economy. That means many people have decided they don't want to work in product production and would rather be technicians, doctors, lawyers, etc. Also, the cost to pay a living wage to production employees makes it hard to compete with emerging foreign countries that do not have the same standard of living and high wages as the US (or any other developed economy). This leads to most developed economies having trade deficits with less developed countries that can still produce cheap goods. |
I say we get the countries who we are losing money to on the trade deficit hooked on Indian opium.
...hey it worked for the UK.








