Baron Creek

Straddling the Median

  
By:  Baron Creek  •  Nonsense and Ramblings  •  2 weeks ago  •  58 comments

Straddling the Median
Straddling the median guarantees an eventual collision... if someone decides to play chicken.

I wonder how long this article will take to become political? My guess would be not long, as most people think only of serving their masters. I have long held that the current political ideologies are simply 2 sides of the same coin and only put lipstick on the pig to attract and placate their followers. Probably should lock it down quickly. 

I hear median income is this and that, but just like icebergs, there is a lot not floating on the surface for all to see. Even that small looking iceberg might just be an outcropping of a much larger iceberg. Sometimes we compare stats from one period to another without looking at the between intervals. 

Here is the median income for the lowest quintile (their words) from the Census Bureau (links available in the PDF).

384384

384384

384384

384384

384384

384384

Article locked at 4:22PM 1-5-2021. 

Thanks to all that participated.

Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
Baron Creek
1  author  Baron Creek    2 weeks ago

I have a better chance of running naked through a covid ward and not catching covid, than I do of this remaining non political. Oh well, I am the dumbass that published it. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Baron Creek @1    2 weeks ago

Technically, you made it political from your first sentence...

"I wonder how long this article will take to become political?"
 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

What do you think the charts mean ? 

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1  author  Baron Creek  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

I commented on each chart.

Overall the trend for the top 5% and 5th quintile accelerated growth from circa 1980. The groundwork was laid in the 1964 revenue, imo, which not only dropped the top rate from 91 to 71 and corporate from 52 to 48... but was plastered with many new loopholes. This just as the U.S. was about to be engaged in a costly war. It was the cost of that war that led to the elimination of gold convertibility, inflation, which in turn led to the door being opened for cheaper imports, etc. The tax rules in the 80s exacerbated the trade issue, which is the destructive force of our middle class and eventually our country. 

The bell cannot be unrung!

Is that pessimistic enough?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.1.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Baron Creek @2.1    2 weeks ago
The tax rules in the 80s exacerbated the trade issue, which is the destructive force of our middle class and eventually our country. 

This is something that younger Millennials and Gen Z [which includes my kids] aren't / weren't taught unless they decide(d) to become economics majors in college. The middle class keeps dwindling and it seems that, despite the middle class being the largest contributors for purchase of goods and services, many don't even care that it's dwindling. Reagan really did a number on the middle class with deregulation, and NAFTA, CAFTA, and ASEAN trade agreements didn't help that working middle class either. While I can get 100% on board with NAFTA with minor amendments for limitations creating a more balanced approach, the others may require either drastic amendments or complete revision / rewrite. That's merely my opinion though.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.2  author  Baron Creek  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

I'm of the opinion that we would be unable to unring the bell. In 1989, according to the BEA , the U.S. net international trade balance went negative to the tune of $33m+ and didn't look back. It quickly went negative to $1T by 1999 and then $2T in 2002. It dithered until 2008 and has since rocketed downward. FED Graph That does contain our deficit held by other countries, but also property, stocks, bonds, etc. Bottom line... we are seriously underwater to the international community.

We have lulled ourselves into believing the federal deficit is the only story in town and that remarkably low interest rates are the new normal, without considering why the interest rates are low... nor considering the potential for reversal of such good fortune. 

There is really no way out of the mess, imo, without creating significant social unrest. I think most folks sense this, but are thus far hung up on blindly following their respective leaders. "The Emporer's New Clothes" comes to mind. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

On the trade side of the question, there are a couple of things that should be considered. 

The trade war (they are easy to win) has proved one thing and that is we are losing it and badly. The trade with China, the current boogyman has maintained a bigly deficit for the US. In October we imported $44.8 billion worth of merchandise from China. If you add to that the billions that US importers have paid in tariffs and the billions and billions to bail out this is IMO to be ongoing. 

Americans bitch about the trade deficit yet they keep buying imported products. So it would seem that although they bitch and jobs were lost that isn't enough to get them to stop buying foreign products. 

Is there a solution, not the one we are currently using with China and many other countries? 

Recently China has signed a free trade agreement with 14 other countries mainly in Asia. That will create the largest trading block in the world. 

EU and China just signed an agreement investment deal and ignored the US asking them to hold off. 

China is now the EU's largest trading partner replacing the US. This is also true in South American and much of Asia. 

China is the world largest economy replacing the US. 

We have some decision to make:

1. continue on with the trade war that we are losing

2. Institute a Smoot Hawley Tariff act and watch us go completely down the tubes

3. Re assess our position and if China is the problem then try to get our old allies to join us in confronting China. This is going to be difficult after Trump has pissed on most of them.

BTW, the way the deficit is figured needs a lot of corrections. 

JMO

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

Good summary. 

This will not be easy for Biden, because Trump has the country heading in the wrong direction on every one of the points you covered.

There's no reason for China to make concessions, obviously.

Perhaps more distressing... there's not much reason for America's other traditional partners to lend a hand, either. America has,in the last few years, declared them all "security risks"... in order to impose high tariffs. Everyone knows that Biden isn't Trump, but no one knows what comes after Biden.

Personally, I don't see any easy path.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

The agreement that could have put us in a better position was the TPP, which was designed to keep China out of the agreement and open huge markets for US farm products. 

But of course, in his infinite wisdom, Trump pulled out of it because, well just because.

There isn't an easy path for Biden or the US we went down the trade war path being lead by incompetents.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.6  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
BTW, the way the deficit is figured needs a lot of corrections. 

How so? Are you talking budget deficits or actual treasury debt?

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
How so? Are you talking budget deficits or actual treasury debt?

I'm talking about the trade deficit. For example, the imported value of an Apple phone is around $240 per phone that is imported from China. In reality, the value added by China is around $9 per phone.

Other countries are part of the manufacturing and assembly of the phone. 

This link gives a good explanation of the problem. 

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.8  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

I see your point, but the shipper in your instance is China, regardless of whether it was partially made anywhere else. 

As for the value added, that might well be $9, but how much is paid to their suppliers and how much is the markup.  In the example we would still pay $240 to China. The hows, whys, etc. are their business, imo. 

BTW, don't forget the weakening dollar as a factor in our current increased trade deficits. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.9  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

China does the final assembly, the components come from the US, Taiwan, Japan, Korea etc. 

The vaue of the various components are all assigned to China and in reality, China does around $9 worth of value. 

This is not just Apple most all of the electronics sent from China to the US the same situation exists. 

It makes no sense to assign the full value of a product to a country that accounts for a minimal amount of the value and the other companies that are making a much larger portion of the product and the profit from it. 

As for the value added, that might well be $9, but how much is paid to their suppliers and how much is the markup.  In the example we would still pay $240 to China. The hows, whys, etc. are their business, imo. 

What China pays to the suppliers and markup has nothing to do with how the value of the product is set. We do not pay China $240 for each phone.

From the article/link

Start with the most valuable components that make up an iPhone: the touch screen display, memory chips, microprocessors and so on. They come from a mix of U.S., Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese companies, such as Intel, Sony, Samsung and Foxconn. Almost none of them are manufactured in China. Apple buys the components and has them shipped to China; then they leave China inside an iPhone.

So what about all of those famous factories in China with millions of workers making iPhones? The companies that own those factories, including Foxconn, are all based in Taiwan. Of the factory-cost estimate of $237.45 from IHS Markit at the time the iPhone 7 was released in late 2016, we calculate that all that’s earned in China is about $8.46, or 3.6 percent of the total. That includes a battery supplied by a Chinese company and the labor used for assembly.

The other $228.99 goes elsewhere. The U.S. and Japan each take a roughly $68 cut, Taiwan gets about $48, and a little under $17 goes to South Korea. And we estimate that about $283 of gross profit from the retail price – about $649 for a 32GB model when the phone debuted – goes straight to Apple’s coffers.

In short, China gets a lot of (low-paid) jobs, while the profits flow to other countries.

This iframe is not allowed

BTW, don't forget the weakening dollar as a factor in our current increased trade deficits. 

Yes, the weakening of the dollar is a factor and it makes out exports less expensive and even with that, the deficit is climbing. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.1.10  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
Americans bitch about the trade deficit yet they keep buying imported products. So it would seem that although they bitch and jobs were lost that isn't enough to get them to stop buying foreign products.

I agree with this, but do you know how difficult it is to find products made in the US? I actively look for those items; some are impossible to find, others are so outrageous that no one except the wealthy can afford it. I even don't mind buying items that are from our international neighbors, Canada and Mexico.

I generally buy groceries at a local "mom n pop" grocery store where I know the owner's name and he knows mine; that store carries foods from right here in MI. The meats come from Monroe Co. and it's a "Spartan" store, which means the "off brand" is a Michigan business. Sometimes, I do have to get some things from Aldi or Kroger, but since the last two times I used my debit card with Kroger (order online and curbside pickup) and my number was stolen, I haven't been back there.

When I buy clothes, I usually go to the local Salvation Army store, because it saves money and it helps a cause. When I can, I will buy jeans made in US, Mexico or Canada... yes, even at the Salvation Army store. When I do splurge on something for myself, it's usually something from the All American Clothing Company and they only sell online; however, they get their textiles from the two remaining textile factories in the US and when they feasibly can, they will even use "hardware" (zippers, buttons, etc.) that are US made as well. While yes, they're pricier than something one would find on Amazon or Walmart, they're doing what they can to help US companies stay in business. 

US automakers have made it virtually pointless in "buying American made" considering the majority of the items that went into that car were made in other countries in which we don't necessarily have a FTA in place. My Fiesta was assembled in Mexico, with parts from various sources and countries, and engineered and tested in Dearborn, MI. That stuff started with Reagan in the 80s. That's why my 84 Ranger had a German engine and a Japanese transmission; or why the late 80s "Chevy Nova" had a Toyota drivetrain... or why most Dodge / Chrysler products had Mitsubishi drivetrains.

It's all a vicious cycle really... Americans bitch that we can't afford US made products and demand a raise, but inflation increases combatting that raise and those US made products are even more expensive, because people got raises that were given, because a division of a US company got sent overseas to save money and that division of people were then laid off, increasing the unemployment rates. Those unemployed then must suck it up and go back a few steps, making less money, because they have to start over with a new place that will do the exact same thing as the previous company after a couple years.

The "big three" automakers don't even hire direct employees anymore; they hire through contract houses that pay less and have worse health care coverage that the employee has to pay for from their paychecks. The first sign of losing money that automaker boots all the contractors and "saves the day / company" without affecting anyone that is deemed important to them. Those people then make that unemployment in larger percentages, making it more difficult to find a decent paying job. Meanwhile, inflation continues to rise, making it more difficult to afford basic needs and never mind those wants now, because all those wants that those people bought over the years now has to be sold to feed the family, keep the lights on and the heat going... but their neighbors can't afford to buy that stuff either, because the entire neighborhood is retired or was laid off from the same place.

Trust me from experience, all of those things happen very quickly and it's nearly impossible to get out of the rut that began 15-20 years earlier. It's damn difficult to save money when that cycle is repetitive. Moreover, when you make more than $25,000 a year [individual] or $35,000 a year [family], you don't get help from the US Government.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.11  Kavika   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.1.10    2 weeks ago

And therein lies the catch. The rut is self-induced and began long before 20 years ago. The auto industry was the first big prize for imports. The Big Three were building pos for cars and each of the Big Three was as bad as the other. Japan introduced (Toyota) the first Asian car imports. From that point on the big three were doomed. When only three companies control a market as large as the US you get what they give you. 

That has evolved into today's auto market where your choices are unlimited and the cars are built to last. As a side benefit the foreign automakers employ tens of thousands of Americans. And a couple of them are major exporters (BMW) of cars which are calculated as a US export.

Outsourcing began a long time ago and has over the years become the go-to for many companies. You can expect to see that trend continue. 

The bottom line is you're on your own in the market. The destruction of the middle class is well on its way.

 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.1.12  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
As a side benefit the foreign automakers employ tens of thousands of Americans.

Agreed. I had to "prepare" my blue-collar, UAW baby boomer family that my next newer car will likely be a Subaru Cross Trek [made by Toyota] or a Mini Cooper [a BMW subsidiary].

The destruction of the middle class is well on its way.

Yes, and sadly for me and my family, we'll be on the poor side of that destruction.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.13  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

If I buy an item from Walmart, I pay Walmart. I do not calculate the values of each supplier to Walmart. It's the same with the Iphone. China's balance of trade is calculated similarly. So is Taiwan's or any other country. The flow of money from the U.S. and into the U.S. is the balance of trade.

If, in the example... the U.S. supplied all the components for the Iphone to China at $231 and China assembled it etc. for $9 an sold that item back to the U.S. for $240... the balance of trade would be -$9 for the U.S. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.13    2 weeks ago
The flow of money from the U.S. and into the U.S. is the balance of trade.

Not quite, it's the flow of goods and their value that determines the balance of trade.

If, in the example... the U.S. supplied all the components for the Iphone to China at $231 and China assembled it etc. for $9 an sold that item back to the U.S. for $240... the balance of trade would be -$9 for the U.S. 

That is correct but in many cases in the world supply chain that isn't how it works.

The U.S. had a deficit in October 2020 with Japan of $5.8billion if the Japanese portion of the Apple phone was attributed to Japan the US deficit with them would be larger and China's would be smaller.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.15  Kavika   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
Agreed. I had to "prepare" my blue-collar, UAW baby boomer family that my next newer car will likely be a Subaru Cross Trek [made by Toyota] or a Mini Cooper [a BMW subsidiary].

My BIL has a Cross Trek and an Outback and swears by them. I believe he has been buying Subaru for the past 20 plus years. 

Yes, and sadly for me and my family, we'll be on the poor side of that destruction.

Sadly for much of the middle class that is true. 

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.16  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
The U.S. had a deficit in October 2020 with Japan of $5.8billion if the Japanese portion of the Apple phone was attributed to Japan the US deficit with them would be larger and China's would be smaller.

And the result for the U.S. balance of trade would be the same, just assigned to different countries. Breaking that down would be next to impossible, as it would require detailed information of corporate finances.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.17  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
And therein lies the catch. The rut is self-induced and began long before 20 years ago.

If I may horn into this conversation. Harken back to the late 70s, when inflation was ramping up and the dollar was falling into oblivion and the Deutschmarke was king of the hill. So much so that the U.S. was forced into selling "Carter" bonds or U.S. treasuries in Deutschmarkes. That halted the slide. 

Then came Volker and raising the fed rate through the roof. The dollar became King Dollar once again. It rose dramatically against the Yen, as an example. That imported car (as an example) that was priced $8k or ¥1.76M, now sold for the same ¥1.76m, but translated to $7.1k. 

Which then began the buying of U.S. Treasuries to keep the dollar king, rather than repatriating back to Japan via exchange system, which would have strengthened the Yen and weakened the yen to dollar rate. Of course, our government became addicted to debt and those attempts by Japan largely failed, as the whole world was getting into the act. 

That is one of many examples. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.18  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
And the result for the U.S. balance of trade would be the same, just assigned to different countries. Breaking that down would be next to impossible, as it would require detailed information of corporate finances.

My point is that it would not change the deficit but it would give us a much better idea of where the deficit belongs and we can act accordingly. Currently, politicians use China as the bad guy instead of actually knowing what they are talking about. 

It would not be that difficult and it would not require corporate finances. It's currently being done and not properly allocated.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

Interesting link.

I remember reading, several years ago, that Germany had the largest part of the iPhone, at around 15%. I'd guess that the fractions shift a bit every year. It looks like Apple has actually done quite a bit of relocalizing since then.

"Bringing home" the Chinese fraction would raise the price of the iPhone considerably, since that's a labor-intensive fraction, while in fact only relocalizing less than 4%

While people like Trump desire a "simple" reality... they cannot have it. Relocalizing the iPhone would require lots of time and money. Which no one wants to spend... 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.21  Kavika   replied to    2 weeks ago
They are the bad guy they have and still steal trillions in intellectual properties.

Which has nothing to do with this conversation.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.1.10    2 weeks ago

Good post.

America's fundamental problem is... capitalism. Wait! Bear with me a second! Don't go away......  yet...  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

A corporation's purpose is to maximize dividends for shareholders (who are a tiny portion of the population) and to maximize salaries for top management. Neither of these objectives is beneficial for the American people as a whole. American capitalism greatly benefits the already-rich... and does little for anyone else, individually or collectively.

There is nothing "nationalist" or "patriotic" here. The beneficiaries of American capitalism do everything they can to contribute as little as possible to American society. They sabotage health-care, education, the environment, ... in their quest for more and more money.

American capitalism is not in service to America.

Meanwhile... China's encourages its capitalists to make lots of money... in sectors that the Party decides are strategic . Chinese capitalism is in service to China.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.23  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.18    2 weeks ago
My point is that it would not change the deficit but it would give us a much better idea of where the deficit belongs and we can act accordingly. Currently, politicians use China as the bad guy instead of actually knowing what they are talking about. 

I can't help how politicians control the minds of the populace. The issue is the trade deficit across the board, how it became a deficit and what can be done about it

It would not be that difficult and it would not require corporate finances. It's currently being done and not properly allocated.

Yes it would be difficult and would require an unnecessary level of bureaucracy that we can ill afford. Keep it simple.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.24  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.21    2 weeks ago
Which has nothing to do with this conversation.

I agree. Neither would be any accusations of currency manipulation. Those days are largely in the rear view mirror, imo.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.25  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.23    2 weeks ago
I can't help how politicians control the minds of the populace. The issue is the trade deficit across the board, how it became a deficit and what can be done about it

The politician's control of how the content of the deficit is addressed. If you have a suggestion as to how to deal with the trade deficit I would love to see it.

Yes it would be difficult and would require an unnecessary level of bureaucracy that we can ill afford. Keep it simple.

Actually, it isn't that difficult and would not require another level of bureaucracy. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.26  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.25    2 weeks ago

Somehow, I am expected to believe that collecting the data on each part and parcel's of every country on the planet for the intial origin for $2.3T in imports, while collecting the same data for 1.4T in exports is somehow simple, yet I am expected to explain how to address the trade deficits. Is that about right?

Please explain how simple it would be.

Once you have satisfactorily explained it, I will give my response on the trade deficit.

As a tease of that response... it would result in hyper-inflation, initial job losses, forced government budget reductions, couple with massive tax increases, etc. All the crap we have avoided over the years to get where we currently are. I guess what I am trying to say... we are going down the tubes regardless. The politicians are merely scapegoating and avoiding their role in all this. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.1.27  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.22    2 weeks ago
American capitalism greatly benefits the already-rich... and does little for anyone else, individually or collectively.

Depends on the person taking advantage of said capitalism. If we didn't have capitalism, a lot of small town businesses wouldn't exist. While I think more stringent policies should be put in place for large corporations to prevent what you're talking about, we can't dismiss capitalism completely. I do remember some things from High School Econ. and US History... we have far more oligarchies than people realize and what baffles me is no one seems to be stopping them. Moreover, if we dig deep enough, one may find a monopoly that is buried so deep that people stop digging before they realize that one residing company owns the majority of several [if not all] subsidiary companies making the same product; while on the surface it appears that all these smaller companies are competing with one large company, the reality is, that large company owns all of the smaller companies "competing" with it.

I think that makes sense.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.28  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.26    2 weeks ago

Well yes, Baron I could explain it and it is part of the US Customs Harmonized code already in existence. 

First off you have to believe that the trade deficit is damaging the country. Which seems to be the consensus of most. I don't believe that it nearly the problem that politicians make it out to be. 

I don't believe that it would take any of the scenarios you listed to come to a better balance in the trade deficit. 

Thanks for the conservation.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.29  r.t..b...  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.1.27    2 weeks ago

Good points, but your contention of ‘small town businesses’ existing because of capitalism flies in face of the the facts facing too many communities.

Main Street is dying...to the benefit of corporations that purport to do just the opposite. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.1.30  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.29    2 weeks ago
Main Street is dying...to the benefit of corporations that purport to do just the opposite. 

That's precisely why I shop local; I want to see Jerry's Market, Joe's Kielbasa, Discount Drinks, The Oak Cafe, Sugarr (sic) Donuts, Traffic Jam [boutique store], etc. survive and thrive. Those are all places I have and do shop or have eaten. Downtown Wyandotte is FULL of "main street" businesses. The downtown areas of Ann Arbor, Trenton, Plymouth, and New Boston are the very same way... so far there are enough people like me in all of the aforementioned areas that the businesses are surviving. The city of Wyandotte will even help small businesses because the city government wants these places to stay. Our community is tight and the city officials are part of that community. It's why I'm proud of our little community.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.31  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.28    2 weeks ago
Well yes, Baron I could explain it and it is part of the US Customs Harmonized code already in existence. 

Which requires contents of product, method of manufacture, etc. to determine which category of tariff pricing it falls, but does not require each tier supplier to indicate cost. Which would imply the details for negotiating of pricing structure is known to one and all, instead of the final price of that tier supplier.

But I gather you wish to end the conversation, so thanks for the debate. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.32  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.31    2 weeks ago
But I gather you wish to end the conversation, so thanks for the debate. 

Actually, I'm well aware of how the harmonized code is constructed and how it can be used.

 I would like to hear your solution to balancing the trade deficit which is the heart of the debate.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.33  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.32    2 weeks ago
Actually, I'm well aware of how the harmonized code is constructed and how it can be used.

If I recall, you stated how easy it would be to determine...

My point is that it would not change the deficit but it would give us a much better idea of where the deficit belongs and we can act accordingly. Currently, politicians use China as the bad guy instead of actually knowing what they are talking about.  It would not be that difficult and it would not require corporate finances. It's currently being done and not properly allocated.

Feel free to explain it AND how it would be used to determine value of products through all the supplier chain countries. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.34  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.33    2 weeks ago
Feel free to explain it AND how it would be used to determine value of products through all the supplier chain countries. 

Of course, you can explain your solution to balancing the trade deficit, which is really the heart of the discussion. The mechanism to determine which country has the largest surplus with the US, as I stated before will not reduce the deficit. 

Or you don't have to, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.35  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.34    2 weeks ago
The mechanism to determine which country has the largest surplus with the US, as I stated before will not reduce the deficit. 

So why did you even introduce it into the conversation?

Nevermind, I have a BiL that does the same thing. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.36  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.35    2 weeks ago

I have a loser BIL that does the same as your doing. 

Cheers.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.37  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.36    2 weeks ago

OMG!! ROTFLMAO!! 

Larry, is that you??

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.38  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.37    2 weeks ago

Is that you Mike, you haven't changed I see.

BTW, you still owe that $5,000.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.39  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.38    2 weeks ago

Yep, Mike is calling Larry's big bluff and Larry is getting flustered and mad. Mike is finding it quite enjoyable.jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.40  Kavika   replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.39    2 weeks ago

I'm not frustrated at all. Remember it was you that threw out the first attempted insult. Could that be because you don't have a balance the trade plan?

So carry on Mike.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.41  Bob Nelson  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.1.27    2 weeks ago
If we didn't have capitalism, a lot of small town businesses wouldn't exist.

How do you figure? If there is a need, someone will fill it. Not necessarily a private company, though.

As an example, electricity may be delivered either by a public or private company.

A local bakery may belong to one person, or to all the personnel.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.42  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2.1.28    2 weeks ago
the trade deficit is damaging the country

Krugman has an interesting take on this: We received goods... and paid for them. Where is a "deficit"?

When we buy a loaf of bread, do we create a deficit with the baker?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.43  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2.1.32    2 weeks ago

     ContentEsteemedDuck-max-1mb.gif

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.44  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.40    2 weeks ago
Remember it was you that threw out the first attempted insult.

The instant you stated... 

Well yes, Baron I could explain it and it is part of the US Customs Harmonized code already in existence

...I became insulted. You discounted my knowledge and background, with what was an obvious bluff to simply win an argument and avoid having the bluff exposed. That is classic Larry. 

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.45  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Kavika @2.1.38    2 weeks ago

That's where we differ... I would never lend Larry any money, as he can't be trusted.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.45    2 weeks ago
I would never lend Larry any money, as he can't be trusted

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.1.47  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Baron Creek @2.1.44    2 weeks ago

It's time to lock this down, as the onlookers are outnumbering us. 

It has been a good discussion, by all that participated. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)    2 weeks ago
I have long held that the current political ideologies are simply 2 sides of the same coin and only put lipstick on the pig to attract and placate their followers.

Agreed, but that's as political as I'm getting here. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4  Bob Nelson    2 weeks ago

The chart for the top 0.1% would be... interesting...

 
 
 
Baron Creek
4.1  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    2 weeks ago

Feel free to check that out. I got tired after doing the above. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Baron Creek @4.1    2 weeks ago

You created the charts? Wow! I'm impressed!

I assumed they were copy/pasted. 

 
 
 
Baron Creek
4.1.2  author  Baron Creek  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
I assumed they were copy/pasted. 

The charts are my concoction, but the data was downloaded (excel) from the website. It took me longer to determine to arrange the data for chart making and then the review. Getting it set up to publish on this website took the longest. It took so long... I forgot why I started. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Baron Creek @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Like I said... Impressive!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
4.1.4  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Baron Creek @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

You should look into Microsoft Power BI. With most Microsoft packages, you can download the app for free. It's really nice and it's far easier than creating charts and pivot tables on Excel. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg