7 hours ago, impulse said:

I mean, how long can you keep buying over half a trillion $$ more than you're selling, year after year after year?

We dodged a bullet in November, '24.

Time to include the services sector in those numbers.

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps the Chinese took the U.S. as an example of why they too should not recognize other people’s IP rights:

Refer the U.S. theft of Charles Dicken’s IP et al.

“In 1842, more than fifty years after the United States enacted its first copyright statute,

Charles Dickens toured this country and pleaded at many stops for the acceptance of

international copyright so that his books would no longer be pirated by American publishers.

The story goes that Dickens’ disillusionment manifested itself in the Ameri can N ot es of 1842;

the novel M art i n C h uzzl ewi t of 1843-44 was largely devoted to his failure of convincing the

Americans of the necessity of protecting foreign authors’ copyrights (Vaidhyanathan, 2001;

Joseph, 1992; Sandison, 1986).”

https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/4034/1/Property_Right_or_Development_Strategy.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Rather smacks of whataboutism. And having to go back nearly 200 years to castigate America for IP booboos rather undermines any thrust your argument could have had. But whatever floats your boat.

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Rather smacks of whataboutism. And having to go back nearly 200 years to castigate America for IP booboos rather undermines any thrust your argument could have had. But whatever floats your boat.

It smacks of legal precedence and since the U.S. legal system is founded on the principals of Common Law , precedence matters.

Trial by jury is one example, roots in Anglo Saxon common law, the principle of ‘jus soli’ is another.

Not Whataboutary, legal precedence.

The U.S. for many years actively engaged in IP theft and got back into during WW2 claiming ‘national interests’.

The breadth of your knowledge has been offered some necessary broadening.

Edited September 5Sep 5 by Chomper Higgot

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It smacks of legal precedence and since the U.S. legal system is founded on the principals of Common Law , precedence matters.

Trial by jury is one example, roots in Anglo Saxon common law, the principle of ‘jus soli’ is another.

Not Whataboutary, legal precedence.

The U.S. for many years actively engaged in IP theft and got back into during WW2 claiming ‘national interests’.

The breadth of your knowledge has been offered some necessary broadening.

Many so-called open minds are often closed for repairs.

Low value posts have been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In November 24 the U.S. deficit was $36.03 trillion, it’s now over $40 trillion.

I'd suggest sticking to other topics if you don't know the difference between a debt and a deficit.

As a non American I say let him do it and hope he doesn't TACO again. Just so so can win as least one prize.

As the most incompetent ignorant president in the history of the USA.

He really hasn't got a clue how much damage he is doing.

If Warsh had a choice between taking financial advice from a trust fund spendthrift with 6 bankruptcies and convictions for business fraud, charity fraud and sexual assault, or else take fine dining advice from Jeffrey Dahmer, Warsh would be wise to go with Dahmer.

1 hour ago, Wingate said:

If Warsh had a choice between taking financial advice from a trust fund spendthrift with 6 bankruptcies and convictions for business fraud, charity fraud and sexual assault, or else take fine dining advice from Jeffrey Dahmer, Warsh would be wise to go with Dahmer.

Warsh should take up golf. Every time Trump plays at one of his resorts, the US taxpayer gets milked on average about $800,000.

Fun Fact — Economics 101:

A bilateral trade deficit isn’t inherently a problem.
When Americans buy more from another country than it buys from the US, those dollars often flow back into US assets—Treasuries, stocks, businesses, and real estate.

The real question is what those capital inflows finance.
Productive investment can strengthen the economy.
Financing persistent government deficits adds to the debt burden—contributing to the already $40 trillion national debt.

The deficit is a symptom, not the disease. Tariffs treat the fever, not the infection.

Edited September 6Sep 6 by LosLobo

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Fun Fact — Economics 101:

A bilateral trade deficit isn’t inherently a problem.
When Americans buy more from another country than it buys from the US, those dollars often flow back into US assets—Treasuries, stocks, businesses, and real estate.

The real question is what those capital inflows finance.
Productive investment can strengthen the economy.
Financing persistent government deficits adds to the debt burden—contributing to the already $40 trillion national debt.

The deficit is a symptom, not the disease. Tariffs treat the fever, not the infection.

America has a few hundred kilometres of high speed rail. China has 50,000 km, with 60,000 projected by 2030.

America is hoping AI will be the savior, The Chinese are investing in physical infrastructure.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

America has a few hundred kilometres of high speed rail. China has 50,000 km, with 60,000 projected by 2030.

America is hoping AI will be the savior, The Chinese are investing in physical infrastructure.

The network, he argued, had grown at a breakneck pace but only because it ignored what he called “basic economic logic” and the consequent weakening of public finances. As of 2022, the company was holding nearly $870 billion in debt, with daily operating losses of around $24 million on parts of the network – especially in the midwest – indicating that many lines simply cannot pay for themselves.

https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/china-high-speed-rail-overbuilt-not-the-point

23 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

The network, he argued, had grown at a breakneck pace but only because it ignored what he called “basic economic logic” and the consequent weakening of public finances. As of 2022, the company was holding nearly $870 billion in debt, with daily operating losses of around $24 million on parts of the network – especially in the midwest – indicating that many lines simply cannot pay for themselves.

https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/china-high-speed-rail-overbuilt-not-the-point

In China, infrastructure companies' role is to finance the development of domestic R&D and equipment manufacturing, even if it's at a loss.

They did that with telecoms networks and now the Chinese industry is dominant, in particular Huawei. For railways equipment, CRRC is likely now the first producer before Alsthom, with $23.7B revenues.

Edited September 7Sep 7 by candide