On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:58:11 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:20:28 -0500, Cliff
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer"
wrote:

We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products
being purchased that are made in China.

And you always want people to buy Korean.

For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total
world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%.
Thus far.
======================
All trade is not equal.

It depends greatly which 6 to 8 % it is.

A billion dollars of commodity items that generate little
employment and are low value added exported, cannot offset a
billion dollars of items that generate high [both level and
volume] employment, that are high value added, and provide a
foundation infrastructure/methodology improvements, that are
imported.

As the usual claims are that imports to the US have high labor
content (from low wage labor) .....

A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little
activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production
of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much
is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high
tech / high value added items.

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.

An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is
not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment,
knowledge-base and methodology.

The US exports waste paper, scrapmetal (the machines
we used to make things with) and arms.

Export/import on this basis is
thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter]
in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future.

The US imports lots of disposable stuff.

If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be
out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports
for long.
--
Cliff