My rebuttal to:
http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2012/03/12/two-year-anniversary-national-export-initiative-successes-abound#comment-3208
Today it is great to hear that the executive emergence order is starting to work. That is a great thing. However, in reality we are sacrificing our defenses for economy. For example, your statement that the US has double exports is in reality without doubt it has also doubled imports. As when the US seems to open trade with foreign countries. It is usually the foreign country earning the balance of payments in foreign treasury. Which then still leaves the US in stagflation. However, it is just a bigger number of stagflation. The idea that the US export initiative is working is but a cloud over the real problem. The real problem is the US's GDP to trade ratio. Which is still around 25-35% equatable. As every time the US goes and does business we feel have to import more from a country than we export. This is a problem. As most countries that have a normalized economy have about a 75% GDP to trade ratio. Which means their economy is primarily based on trade. Where in the US the reality is we are still heavily based on services and stagflation. Where the US's trade is so horrible imbalanced that it does not matter of we where to double our trade, as we are tripled in back debt and balance of payments, we are last in the world. Therefore, I am glad to hear this. Yet, I find the real article should have been, for a professional economic article writer. That the US has finally gained a substantial share of GDP to Trade ratio. Where the US is taken in more trade balance foreign currency than we are putting out in the world. As currently the US imports way more than it exports. Thus leaving us in a horrible trade deficit. As service jobs here in the US when we import are jobs. However, they are stagflation economic equation.
Stagflation means that the service jobs we gain from imports are not helping pay of our macro economy deficit. As the service jobs are not bringing in any foreign currency or treasury and the US is showing no value to the world. Therefore, the idea of exports imitativeness as you stated has come with the cost of allowing free trade with countries that are seriously going to dump on our economy. Thus meaning that the exports initiative is doubled out and crossed out and placed back on the stagflation economic equations. As such, the President in reality as not having a proper macro economic advisers has just done more harm than good with this trade policies of forcing a free trade agreements. So the US can get a small amount of exports compared to the massive amount of imports we are going to have to taken on due to unfair overhead costs.
The overhead costs of today that are causing this stagflation. In which in a free trade agreement force the US into a negative balance of payments. Is in reality because of economic terrorist. Today we see folks like Secretary Chu, stating he wishes to force gas prices to go higher in the US and EU. When the EU has had gasoline prices at ~$10 for over a decade, and the US seriously needs a competitive overhead price to get out of the last place balance of payments and deficit issue. Along with that then we get folks like Commerce Secretary Gary Locke who allowed 80% of our green tech stimulus to be drained from the US under his orders and watchful eyes. Not to mention because of the major lack of ability to gain a surplus in foreign treasury through trade of exports as per trade of imports balances. The US is having to raise its cost of utilities and taxes to upgrade our systems of natural civilized overhead.
Gasoline is one of the most important overhead issues the US has. As the whole supply lines of the US are based on it. If you where a foreign espionage agent, or a sympathetic agent to a foreign country wishing to take over our economy. The main thing you would want to do is to drive up the cost of fuel. As per Kevin Freeman's Secret Weapons. This is exactly what the Communist Muslim mercs are doing, along with Communist China and Russia. This is because of course they wish to keep our trade competition down so they can trade more. As in history trade routes are what take over the world's cognitional and trending balance of clout. Therefore, we can see that gas as the main supply root economic factor is a major issue. Over the last four years thanks to failed DOE policies we have seen the price of Gas rise from $2 a gallon all the way up to $5 a gallon. When the economy as it is constantly going deeper and deeper into debt needs gas to stabilize at a low cost so our business and our supply lines can have a low competitive overhead cost. So we can change our balance of export import payments from negative to positive. As other major competitors in the world, like the Communist Chinese and the Middle east get gas at the cost of about $.65 -$1. This is a major issue. However, the constant rising cost of gas has cost the US to lose export import balance of payments. Which the US keeps making worse. The main reason for this is an ideological perspective that if Secretary Chu drives up the price of gas. That we will move to better fuel systems and a variety of gas. The problem is that, that is like going from hoarses to cars. Cars did not catch for almost three decades from the time they where created. Even then the supply lines of gas and necessary issues to allow the US to have a normalized route system took just as long to catch up. Currently today in the world of macro economics. We do not have the protected economy as did in late 1800's. This means that the US does not have the niceness to force the price of hay and taxes on hoarse to go sky high to push folks into cars. In analogically today. We see the issue with gas being the hay. As such, the reality is that gas is hear for a long time, until we can get the proper supply line routes up for the new type of supply line overhead. Thus meaning the idea of forced price increase is like shooting our economy in the head. As it is not good for the macro whole of the economy. While it could slowly go into affect as gas stays low, as folks will still want to buy cars with better MPG even at $2 a gallon.
Then we get to fact that even if Chu was working on a project to help the US update our supply lines with new energy initiatives. Him Gary Locke and the Contracts Secretary all worked together to allow 80% of our green tech stimulus to be drained from the US. While the Communist Chinese subsidized their green tech industry with over 300 billion. The US barely spent 2.8 billion. Which 80% of that was sent over seas with our companies. While the remaining companies where completely destroyed from non competitive competition with Communist State Owned Enterprises. This then means, that the US as per Secretary Chu's policy to force seizure of our supply lines and cause major stops and crimps and raise hell of high overhead supply costs. Will also lead to a further decrease in the US ability to pay for its deficit. As the main supply lines he is pushing for. Will come from Communist China. This means even if they create their cars here. The majority of the earned surplus income will be going back to Communist China. While the stagflation economic equation will be staying here, as the fresh dollars we could have been making with exports in that industry are going to be collected purely by the Communist Chinese. As today, the majority of the US car companies and other supply line companies that wanted to trade with Communist China. As per Gary Locke and Secretary Chu allowed, used innovation laws to force seizure of all of our green tech US ideas. Thus, then they used 16 Cartelled SOE's to create a major stock pile of supply lines like trucks cars and other issues. In which they are waiting for Secretary Chu to make the cost of gas so high that the US will have no choice but to turn to them for cheap supply lines to try and spread through the US to compete with international needs of low cost supply lines.
This horrible economic leadership of allowing the US to constantly lose its balance of payments in trade. Has another affect. Which is the affect of another major overhead issue of US business. Which is called utilities. In the last four years. The US has seen over three major hikes in all of our utilities. As the utility companies are tasked with major updates and forced bonds are taken out against future tax dollars of the US. This then means that the cost of doing business as per the supply line and as per the utilities has tripled over the last four years. Thus, we see that sure exports may have risen. But that is because our populational needs have risen. However, the US's ability to pay its balance of payments has not risen. Therefore, the macro economic policy is a failure and this article is but a bandaid on the real issue of our deficit and ability to compete with overhead costs for our business in the US to export to major economies like South Korea, Communist China, Africa, and Latin America. Where the US has seen the Communist Chinese substantial growth in trade. While the US cold war policies of trade for trade tit for tat against the Communist Party has become the idea that the Communist Chinese can do it. The US should stay out of it while the Communist Chinese develop the world. Which again the issue of who holds the monopoly supply lines in international economies along with development contracts. Is not the US, and it is the Communist Chinese due to horrible macro economic policies, that do not realize the issue is not exports but the issue is the balance of payments and our strength to compete against a fascist economic model, that is exactly similar to the German Socialist, Soviets and the majority of fascist economies like Iran and North Korea.
Rider I
P.S.
The Fascist economic model is a very aggressive model. Thus when not in time of economic peace as we had in the 1990's. As the major fascist economic model then collapsed. We see that today our economic leaders are not aggressive enough when it comes to a balancing our payments of trade. Doing things like given loans to international countries to develop so we can export more material to their market place does not exist in this administration. The idea of charity does. Which does not get us interest payments to help pay back our own interest payments. During the cold war, the US was very aggressive in loans to countries like Africa and Latin America to help them develop their market infrastructure so we could export and trade with them. Today we see the old US cold war networks of trade crumbling and the Communist Chinese aggressive economic leaders devouring our current economic leaderships failures to keep updating our international trade aggressive for free markets against the fascist economic model.
http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2012/03/12/two-year-anniversary-national-export-initiative-successes-abound#comment-3208
Today it is great to hear that the executive emergence order is starting to work. That is a great thing. However, in reality we are sacrificing our defenses for economy. For example, your statement that the US has double exports is in reality without doubt it has also doubled imports. As when the US seems to open trade with foreign countries. It is usually the foreign country earning the balance of payments in foreign treasury. Which then still leaves the US in stagflation. However, it is just a bigger number of stagflation. The idea that the US export initiative is working is but a cloud over the real problem. The real problem is the US's GDP to trade ratio. Which is still around 25-35% equatable. As every time the US goes and does business we feel have to import more from a country than we export. This is a problem. As most countries that have a normalized economy have about a 75% GDP to trade ratio. Which means their economy is primarily based on trade. Where in the US the reality is we are still heavily based on services and stagflation. Where the US's trade is so horrible imbalanced that it does not matter of we where to double our trade, as we are tripled in back debt and balance of payments, we are last in the world. Therefore, I am glad to hear this. Yet, I find the real article should have been, for a professional economic article writer. That the US has finally gained a substantial share of GDP to Trade ratio. Where the US is taken in more trade balance foreign currency than we are putting out in the world. As currently the US imports way more than it exports. Thus leaving us in a horrible trade deficit. As service jobs here in the US when we import are jobs. However, they are stagflation economic equation.
Stagflation means that the service jobs we gain from imports are not helping pay of our macro economy deficit. As the service jobs are not bringing in any foreign currency or treasury and the US is showing no value to the world. Therefore, the idea of exports imitativeness as you stated has come with the cost of allowing free trade with countries that are seriously going to dump on our economy. Thus meaning that the exports initiative is doubled out and crossed out and placed back on the stagflation economic equations. As such, the President in reality as not having a proper macro economic advisers has just done more harm than good with this trade policies of forcing a free trade agreements. So the US can get a small amount of exports compared to the massive amount of imports we are going to have to taken on due to unfair overhead costs.
The overhead costs of today that are causing this stagflation. In which in a free trade agreement force the US into a negative balance of payments. Is in reality because of economic terrorist. Today we see folks like Secretary Chu, stating he wishes to force gas prices to go higher in the US and EU. When the EU has had gasoline prices at ~$10 for over a decade, and the US seriously needs a competitive overhead price to get out of the last place balance of payments and deficit issue. Along with that then we get folks like Commerce Secretary Gary Locke who allowed 80% of our green tech stimulus to be drained from the US under his orders and watchful eyes. Not to mention because of the major lack of ability to gain a surplus in foreign treasury through trade of exports as per trade of imports balances. The US is having to raise its cost of utilities and taxes to upgrade our systems of natural civilized overhead.
Gasoline is one of the most important overhead issues the US has. As the whole supply lines of the US are based on it. If you where a foreign espionage agent, or a sympathetic agent to a foreign country wishing to take over our economy. The main thing you would want to do is to drive up the cost of fuel. As per Kevin Freeman's Secret Weapons. This is exactly what the Communist Muslim mercs are doing, along with Communist China and Russia. This is because of course they wish to keep our trade competition down so they can trade more. As in history trade routes are what take over the world's cognitional and trending balance of clout. Therefore, we can see that gas as the main supply root economic factor is a major issue. Over the last four years thanks to failed DOE policies we have seen the price of Gas rise from $2 a gallon all the way up to $5 a gallon. When the economy as it is constantly going deeper and deeper into debt needs gas to stabilize at a low cost so our business and our supply lines can have a low competitive overhead cost. So we can change our balance of export import payments from negative to positive. As other major competitors in the world, like the Communist Chinese and the Middle east get gas at the cost of about $.65 -$1. This is a major issue. However, the constant rising cost of gas has cost the US to lose export import balance of payments. Which the US keeps making worse. The main reason for this is an ideological perspective that if Secretary Chu drives up the price of gas. That we will move to better fuel systems and a variety of gas. The problem is that, that is like going from hoarses to cars. Cars did not catch for almost three decades from the time they where created. Even then the supply lines of gas and necessary issues to allow the US to have a normalized route system took just as long to catch up. Currently today in the world of macro economics. We do not have the protected economy as did in late 1800's. This means that the US does not have the niceness to force the price of hay and taxes on hoarse to go sky high to push folks into cars. In analogically today. We see the issue with gas being the hay. As such, the reality is that gas is hear for a long time, until we can get the proper supply line routes up for the new type of supply line overhead. Thus meaning the idea of forced price increase is like shooting our economy in the head. As it is not good for the macro whole of the economy. While it could slowly go into affect as gas stays low, as folks will still want to buy cars with better MPG even at $2 a gallon.
Then we get to fact that even if Chu was working on a project to help the US update our supply lines with new energy initiatives. Him Gary Locke and the Contracts Secretary all worked together to allow 80% of our green tech stimulus to be drained from the US. While the Communist Chinese subsidized their green tech industry with over 300 billion. The US barely spent 2.8 billion. Which 80% of that was sent over seas with our companies. While the remaining companies where completely destroyed from non competitive competition with Communist State Owned Enterprises. This then means, that the US as per Secretary Chu's policy to force seizure of our supply lines and cause major stops and crimps and raise hell of high overhead supply costs. Will also lead to a further decrease in the US ability to pay for its deficit. As the main supply lines he is pushing for. Will come from Communist China. This means even if they create their cars here. The majority of the earned surplus income will be going back to Communist China. While the stagflation economic equation will be staying here, as the fresh dollars we could have been making with exports in that industry are going to be collected purely by the Communist Chinese. As today, the majority of the US car companies and other supply line companies that wanted to trade with Communist China. As per Gary Locke and Secretary Chu allowed, used innovation laws to force seizure of all of our green tech US ideas. Thus, then they used 16 Cartelled SOE's to create a major stock pile of supply lines like trucks cars and other issues. In which they are waiting for Secretary Chu to make the cost of gas so high that the US will have no choice but to turn to them for cheap supply lines to try and spread through the US to compete with international needs of low cost supply lines.
This horrible economic leadership of allowing the US to constantly lose its balance of payments in trade. Has another affect. Which is the affect of another major overhead issue of US business. Which is called utilities. In the last four years. The US has seen over three major hikes in all of our utilities. As the utility companies are tasked with major updates and forced bonds are taken out against future tax dollars of the US. This then means that the cost of doing business as per the supply line and as per the utilities has tripled over the last four years. Thus, we see that sure exports may have risen. But that is because our populational needs have risen. However, the US's ability to pay its balance of payments has not risen. Therefore, the macro economic policy is a failure and this article is but a bandaid on the real issue of our deficit and ability to compete with overhead costs for our business in the US to export to major economies like South Korea, Communist China, Africa, and Latin America. Where the US has seen the Communist Chinese substantial growth in trade. While the US cold war policies of trade for trade tit for tat against the Communist Party has become the idea that the Communist Chinese can do it. The US should stay out of it while the Communist Chinese develop the world. Which again the issue of who holds the monopoly supply lines in international economies along with development contracts. Is not the US, and it is the Communist Chinese due to horrible macro economic policies, that do not realize the issue is not exports but the issue is the balance of payments and our strength to compete against a fascist economic model, that is exactly similar to the German Socialist, Soviets and the majority of fascist economies like Iran and North Korea.
Rider I
P.S.
The Fascist economic model is a very aggressive model. Thus when not in time of economic peace as we had in the 1990's. As the major fascist economic model then collapsed. We see that today our economic leaders are not aggressive enough when it comes to a balancing our payments of trade. Doing things like given loans to international countries to develop so we can export more material to their market place does not exist in this administration. The idea of charity does. Which does not get us interest payments to help pay back our own interest payments. During the cold war, the US was very aggressive in loans to countries like Africa and Latin America to help them develop their market infrastructure so we could export and trade with them. Today we see the old US cold war networks of trade crumbling and the Communist Chinese aggressive economic leaders devouring our current economic leaderships failures to keep updating our international trade aggressive for free markets against the fascist economic model.
No comments:
Post a Comment