US trade deficit hits 18-month low on record exports in May


#1

Also of note from the article:

The Commerce Department said Friday the May deficit – the difference between what America sells and what it buys in foreign markets – fell as exports climbed 2 percent to a record $215.3 billion.

So much winning.


#2

I don’t see where the winning is here. Trade deficits are neutral, presuming we don’t have restrictive tariffs. People should be free to buy from wherever they like without the heavy hand of government interfering. The government artificially raises the price of imports, the trade deficit goes down and that is called winning? That is patently ridiculous.


#3

It’s only necessary as a tool of correction now because the previous administration practically gave away everything this country had to offer for 8 years.

I’m sure once things level out, we’ll get back to a more-or-less neutral stance.


#4

What exactly did they give away?


#5

He doesn’t read his own links, let alone anything you might post balanced trade.
fair warning.


#6

Yet he starts these threads anyway. Good to know that he won’t be an active participant.


#7

Mostly we got stuck with half of the world’s collective defense bill, while they bilked the hell out of us on most of our trade. No more, and thank God.


#8

You can ask the farmers who depend on exports what they think of the anti-free trade policy of Trump’s.


#9

The defense bill has nothing to do with the trade deficit. How did we get harmed on trade? Are you saying that consumers aren’t competent to make their own decisions?


#10

I realize some may think exports determine their profits and losses, but I’m sure the weather has a lot more to do with it, and will this year.

Right now, the corn is in reasonably good condition, but it could go south still. The wheat’s off and it did well. But soybeans are now in the ground and it’s not looking very good. If it doesn’t rain in the Midwest and plains a lot and very soon, soybeans will be very expensive but nobody will have any.

That’ll actually be good for farmers’ bottom lines. Know why? Because most of them are insured by crop insurance. Insurance payouts are determined by two things; your crop history and the price of your product at two times in the year; spring and fall. If failure is widespread, the insurance payments are high because fall cash prices are high. If only localized, they’re not. 2011 and 2012 were drought years, but the grain farmers made more in those years than they did before or since, because of the insurance payments.

For cattle, though, drought will be bad. Same for poultry. EXCEPT that if the soybean crop is reasonably good and China buys less to the extent there really is a superfluity of beans (which I doubt) beef feed lots might actually be able to buy soybean meal again. Poultry producers can’t really do without soybean meal, so they’ll be buying almost no matter what.

The farmers will sell any soybeans they have. Same with corn. But what they really want is a savage drought. I’m not joking.


#11

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.