WASHINGTON (AP) - The trade deficit jumped to the second-highest level
in history as surging demand for foreign oil swamped a small gain in
U.S. exports, the government reported Thursday. America's trade gap
with China hit an all-time high as retailers stocked up on cell
phones, toys and televisions in preparation for Christmas sales.

The worse-than-expected trade performance in August -- a deficit of
$54 billion -- represented a 6.9 percent widening from July's trade
gap of $50.5 billion. The record monthly deficit was set in June at
$55 billion.

snip

In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
billion, pushed higher by a surge in demand for cell phones, toys and
games, televisions and VCRs as U.S. retailers stocked their shelves in
advance of the holiday shopping season.


[ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
somewhere... ]

"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...

In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
billion, pushed higher by a surge in demand for cell phones, toys and
games, televisions and VCRs as U.S. retailers stocked their shelves in
advance of the holiday shopping season.


[ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
somewhere... ]


If it makes you feel better, putting the trade gap into perspective, the
record $18.1 billion might amount to 1 or 2 hours of consumer spending in
the U.S.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:11 GMT, patrick conroy
wrote:

In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
billion

I buy from wherever makes it best. If this is China (my titanium bike
frame), then I'll happily buy Chinese.

The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
better.

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
better.

Andy, Andy, Andy. I know you've been contributing to the group for quite
a while - with some excellent responses, BTW - but maybe you didn't
realize that most here are Americans...

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:46:53 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
better.

Andy, Andy, Andy. I know you've been contributing to the group for quite
a while - with some excellent responses, BTW - but maybe you didn't
realize that most here are Americans...

He probably didn't, because that mental squirt doesn't have a clue
about anything. Look at the banal and useless things he makes and
takes such pride in! Talk about someone who ain't got a life! His real
name must be Andy Dingleberry, and the world is a worse place since
his pitiful mother spawned him/it. I wish he'd make himself a coffin
out of that scrap wood he uses, and bury himself in it alive, and
very, very deep.

Peace, Rb

Rb did say:

He probably didn't, because that mental squirt doesn't have a clue
about anything. Look at the banal and useless things he makes and
takes such pride in! Talk about someone who ain't got a life! His real
name must be Andy Dingleberry, and the world is a worse place since
his pitiful mother spawned him/it. I wish he'd make himself a coffin
out of that scrap wood he uses, and bury himself in it alive, and
very, very deep.

Peace, Rb

Jeez, Rb... What'd AD do to you? That's at least two death wishing flames
today. Not that I care about AD one way or the other, I'm just curious.

Peace???!!! Not with AD obviously.


--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

WoodMangler did say:

ace, Rb

Jeez, Rb... What'd AD do to you? That's at least two death wishing flames
today. Not that I care about AD one way or the other, I'm just curious.


Looking at your headers, they match the news server of only one other
person on the rec. Can't say why you despise AD so much, he didn't seem to
participate too much in the political threads you were so fond of until
recently.

Actually I think that his reply makes a lot of sense. Americans buy too
much for the sake of owning things. To do this they must look at price and
not quality, then they complain about how poorly everything is made as they
go out to buy more cheap stuff to replace the cheap stuff they don't need in
the first place. If we all bought only what we needed and bought quality
items we would all have more money in the bank and be living better. If you
don't think Americans own to much stuff, spend a weekend going to yard
sales.
"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
better.

Andy, Andy, Andy. I know you've been contributing to the group for quite
a while - with some excellent responses, BTW - but maybe you didn't
realize that most here are Americans...

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

"patrick conroy" wrote in message


[ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
somewhere... ]

Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from overseas
even if we want to buy US.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
overseas even if we want to buy US.

The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in Korea".
I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE, Maytag,
Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is made in
Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have come out of
the same factory.

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
overseas even if we want to buy US.

The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in Korea".
I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE, Maytag,
Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is made in
Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have come out of
the same factory.

IMHO get the tool that offers the most value to you personally. Buying more
expensive or inferior hurts every body including the factory worker. The
locals need to learn to compete if they expect to remain in business. One
day it will be too late to learn to compete. Now is a good tome to learn.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:27:44 +0000, Leon wrote:


"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently.
Every
single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
overseas even if we want to buy US.

The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in
Korea". I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE,
Maytag, Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is
made in Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have
come out of the same factory.

IMHO get the tool that offers the most value to you personally. Buying
more expensive or inferior hurts every body including the factory worker.
The locals need to learn to compete if they expect to remain in business.
One day it will be too late to learn to compete. Now is a good tome to
learn.

Soooo, since EVERY microwave is made in Korea, how do I tell which is the
best value and what do the "locals" have to do with it, and who are the
"locals" competing with, and isn't it already a little "late"?

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
Soooo, since EVERY microwave is made in Korea, how do I tell which is the
best value and what do the "locals" have to do with it, and who are the
"locals" competing with, and isn't it already a little "late"?

-Doug

LOL... I knew that I probably should have posted this some where else. In
this case it would be hard to tell since each one appears to have been made
in one location. And yes in this case, it may be too late. I went through
this during the spring, buying a new microwave to replace a 1978 model and
every sales man knew SQUAT about the microwaves. Man these things do 10
times as much as they did back then for 1/4 the price.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:17:39 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
overseas even if we want to buy US.

The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in Korea".
I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE, Maytag,
Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is made in
Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have come out of
the same factory.

probably dae woo (sp)... they make everything from computers to cars..

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
single one was made in China.

We have a tank of a toaster. The Peterbuilt of toasters. It's a c.1955,
chrome and bakelight Kenmore that I picked up for a buck at my local
thrift store. Made in USA. Pops up a beautiful piece of hot toast just
begging for a slab of butter.

Have also forked over a few bucks for a chrome and bakelight waffle
iron, chrome clothes iron, and a polished aluminum(?) B&D drill - all
made in the US of A. How many of the plastic, Asian-import toasters,
irons and drills you all are buying today will still be working as the
day they were boxed at the factory come 50 years?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

patrick conroy wrote:
[snip]
In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
billion, pushed higher by a surge in demand for cell phones, toys and
games, televisions and VCRs as U.S. retailers stocked their shelves in
advance of the holiday shopping season.


[ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
somewhere... ]

We have to keep making nice with the Chinese. The People's Republic
owns a fair chunk of our $7 trillion nation debt.
twitch,
jo4hn

I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.

This is the quote I especially like:

"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
sustained by laid-off American workers."

As before, I am hesitant to quote the entire article because of
copyright laws
but here is the url to read it yourself:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=8521

"Ray Kinzler" wrote in message
m...
I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.

This is the quote I especially like:

"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
sustained by laid-off American workers."


I suspect that the potential laid-off American workers had better start
becoming more competitive and learn to survive in world economy.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:24:59 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:



I suspect that the potential laid-off American workers had better start
becoming more competitive and learn to survive in world economy.

That's my tune - mostly. But I find it easier to tell this to a group
of 25 yr olds rather than a 55 yr old with a mortgage, college bills,
possible medical costs, perhaps a parent in need of long-term
expensive care. And wondering how long it'll be before his 401K
retirement plans get back on track after the bubble burst.

I've said it before - I'm in IT and I think about this everyday. What
am I doing to ensure I can provide for my family?

"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:24:59 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:



I suspect that the potential laid-off American workers had better start
becoming more competitive and learn to survive in world economy.

That's my tune - mostly. But I find it easier to tell this to a group
of 25 yr olds rather than a 55 yr old with a mortgage, college bills,
possible medical costs, perhaps a parent in need of long-term
expensive care. And wondering how long it'll be before his 401K
retirement plans get back on track after the bubble burst.


I'm 50 now and always kept in the back of my mind, I could be replaced or
this type business is not going to last unless changes are made. I am
certainly glad that I knew this when I was 23.

On 15 Oct 2004 05:14:40 -0700, (Ray Kinzler)
wrote:

economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.

This is something Brits of my Dad's generation realised twenty years
ago, when that bloody Thatcher woman closed down manufacturing in
favour of a "service" economy. You can't all survive just by taking
in each other's washing. If no-one makes anything any more, then the
whole business eventually grinds to a halt. Outsourcing manufacturing
to China is perhaps a bigger issue in the USA than in the UK, simply
because we already lost so much of our manufacturing 15 years ago.

--
Smert' spamionam

On 15 Oct 2004 05:14:40 -0700, (Ray Kinzler)
wrote:

I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.

This is the quote I especially like:

"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
sustained by laid-off American workers."

As before, I am hesitant to quote the entire article because of
copyright laws
but here is the url to read it yourself:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=8521

A good article and a book that's been long overdue. After listening
to Ralph Nader speak to this very subject last night, I really wish we
had some realistic hope of getting him elected.

With the almost-total loss now of our manufacturing base, our economy
is based on smoke&mirrors, hamburgers and "information technology"
(which is essentially nothing).

The only people who really believe in the 'global economy' are the
very few who are enlarging their personal fortunes. For the rest of
us it's disaster, and NAFTA is the most close-to-home example I can
think of at the moment.

One of the shining examples of how bad NAFTA is, is that the state of
Michigan cannot stop Canada from hauling their trash and hazardous
waste across our borders. Now, this is a country with a land mass
pretty much equivalent to that of the United States and a population
of some 30 million. Surely, somewhere, in all that wasteland, theres
room for a landfill of their very own. And on top of all that, one
very greedy and uncaring US developer is now drilling a 'deep well',
into which he intends to let Canada inject even more hazardous waste.
The only thing that can stop this is action by the US congress, and
the liklihood of that happening are just slightly less than me having
Britney Spears show up on my door tonight for a date.

(Soapbox now properly stowed. Thanks for listening.

On 15 Oct 2004 05:14:40 -0700, (Ray Kinzler)
wrote:

I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.

This is the quote I especially like:

"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
sustained by laid-off American workers."

Ultimately, in a global economy, most of the world must be just barely
above subsistence level. As countries such as China raise there
standard of living those on the US and Europe must drop to compensate.

The good news is that as the standard of living drops the value of our
time drops and it is less costly to spend many hours in the woodshop.
The bad news is that you will be doing it neander style. (some may
consider that good news as well)

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Ultimately, in a global economy, most of the world must be just barely
above subsistence level. As countries such as China raise there
standard of living those on the US and Europe must drop to compensate.

I don't think so. Currently, Chinese government is trying many things
to boost internal consumption. Things like many long stretch of
holiday weeks to allow people to travel far and away to spend money.
Basically, China cannot rely on foreign market to cure China
unemployment problem; the foreign market is simply not large enough
for all the products from China. China will have to cure the problem
by increasing domestic consumption. With China already in WTO, this
means US companies have a chance to get a piece of the increasing
Chinese market. The key is to sell products that match the need in
that market. US can sell raw material to China, or US can sell
finished products from highly automated factories (to keep cost down).

This will be a win-win situation. There will be short term pain both
in China and in other countries. In the long term, the global market
will be bigger. When we add the growing India market into the mix, the
global market will be even bigger. And when we add a recovering Russia
into the mix, the global market will be bigger and bigger...

Of course, US would lose the opportunity of gaining Chinese market
share to other countries if US was only concerning of what market they
would lose instead of what market they would gain. Luckily, this
doesn't seem to be what is happening considering the fact that large
number of US companies are actively marketing in China.

Jay Chan

On 18 Oct 2004 10:22:26 -0700, (Jay Chan) wrote:

Ultimately, in a global economy, most of the world must be just barely
above subsistence level. As countries such as China raise there
standard of living those on the US and Europe must drop to compensate.

I don't think so. Currently, Chinese government is trying many things
to boost internal consumption. Things like many long stretch of
holiday weeks to allow people to travel far and away to spend money.
Basically, China cannot rely on foreign market to cure China
unemployment problem; the foreign market is simply not large enough
for all the products from China. China will have to cure the problem
by increasing domestic consumption. With China already in WTO, this
means US companies have a chance to get a piece of the increasing
Chinese market. The key is to sell products that match the need in
that market. US can sell raw material to China, or US can sell
finished products from highly automated factories (to keep cost down).

This will be a win-win situation. There will be short term pain both
in China and in other countries. In the long term, the global market
will be bigger. When we add the growing India market into the mix, the
global market will be even bigger. And when we add a recovering Russia
into the mix, the global market will be bigger and bigger...

Of course, US would lose the opportunity of gaining Chinese market
share to other countries if US was only concerning of what market they
would lose instead of what market they would gain. Luckily, this
doesn't seem to be what is happening considering the fact that large
number of US companies are actively marketing in China.

There simply aren't enough resources in the world for all of the
population to exist at U.S./Europe standard of living.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
...
On 18 Oct 2004 10:22:26 -0700, (Jay Chan) wrote:



There simply aren't enough resources in the world for all of the
population to exist at U.S./Europe standard of living.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com


he's right, I did the math..... oh, .wait a minute, do you carry the
two?........divide by the inverse? Well it's simple anyway......trust me, I
am enlightened

There simply aren't enough resources in the world for all of the
population to exist at U.S./Europe standard of living.

Not sure about Europe. But I would not suggest any country to follow
US standard of living -- just too wasteful. Whatever energy saving in
using better isulation material and efficient heating system is being
used up by building bigger and bigger hourses. I am sure this world
will collapse if every country tries to duplicate US standard of
living. The trick is not to exactly follow US standard of living.

For example, if every Chinese wants to build a house like a regular
house in US suburban neighborhood. China will run out of land in a
very short time. Therefore, this is impractical to expect a house like
this in China -- there is just not enough land. Something that a
regular Chinese should hope for is a multiple floors apartment
building. Actually, this is not a bad thing to live in a city or a big
town considering the fact that many US people love to live in New York
City (if they can afford an apartment in NYC).

I believe one of the reason why many US people want to move out from
the cities is to avoid the racial tension and the consequence of
racial tension. This situation is simply not applicable to many other
countries. Hence, there is less likely to have a large number of
people moving out of the cities in other countries.

In other words, there is really no reason to expect everyone in the
world to _be_able_ to live like US people, nor expect everyone in the
world to _want_ to live like US people.

In long term, people in China will get a good living standard, and
they will get this in a different way from US. They will be living in
MEGA cities, instead of living in big houses in suburban.

Obviously, if someone is living in an apartment in a city, he will
need fewer furnitures to fill up the empty space, will not need a lot
of applicants, will not need a convection oven or a large refrigrator
(because he will eat out more often than not), will not need to fool
around with a lawn mower, will not need to drive a car, ...etc. He can
cut down a lot of spending without affecting his quality of life.

Of course, if we strictly limit to "US standard of living", we can
safely assume that the rest of the world cannot afford it.

Jay Chan

If this makes you feel better, Chinese are buying stuffs from many
other Asian countries (most of them are US allies), assembling those
stuffs together and selling the finished products to US. In a way, the
large trade deficit with China is simply a repackaging of the large
trade deficit that US used to have with other Asian countries. Now the
trade deficit takes a detour to China and get re-labeled as a trade
deficit with China.

China has very little natural resource other than human resource. If
China needs to sell something, China needs to import it from foreign
countries in a form of raw materials or partially finished components.
That is the reason China has trade deficits with the rest of the Asian
countries (particularly Japan). In the end, China has a small surplus;
this is not like China is rolling in money. Please bear in mind that
China sells a lot of stuff to US, but US also sells a lot of stuffs
(like military equipments) to Asian countries, and those Asian
countries sells a lot of stuffs to China. This is like a loop.
Therefore, we cannot simply look at the trade balance with China in
isolation. We need to look at the big picture.

If US wants to improve its overall trade balance, US needs to sell
more stuff to the rest of the world. US has plenty of raw materials
that can sell -- start by opening more oil fields in Alaska. This is a
question of whether US (government and people) has the will to do
this.

The other way is to cut the defense budget or downsize the government,
and channel the money (in the form of tax saving) to private sectors
in order to increase the capital investment on US industrials. This is
to improve the productivity of US industrials. Honestly, I don't know
if this will work though (US companies could send the money aboard and
opened a state of the art factory in China); therefore, I don't say
anything more on this.

There are other things that US can do well and could have sold well.
High tech military equipments are things that US is doing very well
and could have sold well. Afterall, US has spent so much money
developing those weapons. But for one reason or another, US cannot
simply sell these high tech stuffs to any country discriminably. This
means US has very great stuffs that US could have sold but cannot
sell.

In other words, there are many great stuffs that US could have sold,
but cannot sell for some reasons. This will go a long way explaining
why US has a large trade deficit.

If US doesn't want to sell more stuffs to the world, US will need to
find a way to buy fewer stuffs from the rest of the world either
voluntarily or being forced on. Seem like if the budget deficit keeps
increasing like this, US currency may drop its value. IF this
happened, we would not afford to buy that many stuffs from the rest of
the world, and the trade deficit would be taken care of in this way.
Oh well...

Jay Chan