Originally Posted by ugacrew

Methinks this very young user has a habit of posting economic data on other forums. Just an inkling I have.

Originally Posted by fatbrit

A ginkling, perhaps?

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

and stop enjoying foreign trinkets.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

Sure it does, because it allows consumers to acquire goods more cheaply from abroad than they could if they were sourced at home. They increase their consumption of their goods accordingly, which increases GDP and keep domestic inflation rates low. Their purchasing power increases thanks to the labor arbitrage achieved from the imports.

The alternatives to importing these goods would be to produce more of them domestically at higher prices (higher labor rates), which would necessarily reduce consumption and the business infrastructure that imports and retails them. US businesses achieve growth by selling these imports, which adds to GDP.

"Booming" is a relative term. US exports clearly cannot keep apace with the US appetite for imports, obviously, otherwise the US wouldn't attempt to support such a massive trade deficit. That trade deficit that can only be supported through foreign investment (read: debt.)

The weakening dollar and soaring commodity prices suggest that the system is cracking. Only a textbook idealist could believe that a weak dollar is good for the United States. The US is import dependent and has no basis for creating a trade balance.

If the dollar continues to lose value at this pace, there is no reason to believe that it will continue to remain a reserve currency over the long run, as no foreign treasury will wish to stay heavily invested in a rapidly depreciating asset.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I think fonseca mean that weak dollar became USA products cheaper and could "boom" export that results and could growth GDP.
Actually trade balance doesn`t mean alot for a one time.
But constantly like in USA it could make opinion of investors that USA haven`t possiblites to pay USA saldo. And make decision to more actual country that could USA GDP down.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I think fonseca mean that weak dollar became USA products cheaper and could "boom" export that results and could growth GDP.
Actually trade balance doesn`t mean alot for a one time.
But constantly like in USA it could make opinion of investors that USA haven`t possiblites to pay USA saldo. And make decision to more actual country that could USA GDP down.

Originally Posted by elfman

thanks Borat

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I think fonseca mean that weak dollar became USA products cheaper and could "boom" export that results and could growth GDP.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

(Yes, I understood that.) You are right, I'm sure that's what he meant.

The only problem with that argument is that the US is still running enormous trade deficits, and the devaluation of the dollar has done little to change this.

There is no point at which the US dollar can be weak enough to create a trade balance. We would have to lose our thirst for imported oil and dramatically reduce our consumption of imports to fix it. Or else, we can start paying US workers what the Chinese are paying theirs (something that we attempt to accomplish with illegal migrant labor, but I digress.)

Originally Posted by Vladimir

For the first time i think that american workers only 2 times more overpaied then chinese.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

Not at all the case. China's per capita GDP (PPP) was $5,300; the US' was $45,800. That's a difference of over nine times.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Lets count. Aver. salary in USA (probably) 2500$/9=280$.
For the same work i China pay usually a i listen 150$. I think i was right.

Originally Posted by ugacrew

An itty bitty tinny weeny yellow polka dot bikini kinda ginkling.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

I think the problem is that murders are included, and - IIRC - if you're an African-American male you're more likely to end up on a slab than in university by the time you're 21. That's going to skew these numbers slightly.