General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#2 |
|
Originally posted by Eli
First, why US Bank Failures dropped from hundreds in the 80s and early 90s, to single digits in the late 90s and early 00s? No idea. Random thought: S&L crisis (about which I know almost nothing). People who were actually alive then might know the answer... Second, why all the blabla about what would happen if China suddenly stops trading with you, when your total trade with Mexico is bigger and with Canada it's twice as big? China's not an insignificant proportion, still, and we buy different stuff from them than from Canada. Third, how come your imports are almost twice as large as your exports? That makes no sense at all. Many of us agree ![]() Fourth, how come 8 of your 10 busiest ports are either in Texas or Louisiana? Shouldn't most trade come to the East or West coasts, not to the Gulf? *shrug* And fifth, what on earth do the 235,654 employees of the Department of Veteran Affairs do? I presume they take care of veterans, esp. invalids. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Originally posted by DanS
With the advent of the Panama Canal, Texas and Louisiana aren't that much farther than the coasts. If Houston's port has better service or is less crowded than the coastal ports, then it makes sense for the ships to go to Houston. Additionally, both are safer from natural disasters that would be major disruptions on the coasts: The eastern seaboard gets hit with hurricanes (they've reached Nova Scotia before, all the way up in Canada) while the western seaboard has earthquakes along its entire length. Plus, Texas has ports protected by natural features of the shoreline while Louisiana provides shipping access to the interior of the country by means of the Mississippi River, reducing land shipping costs. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
No, but I bet the operators of the seaports that are, you know, built on land are...
Why worry about something you have no control over? You certainly wouldn't turn away business today for fear of a disaster that may not happen for hundreds of years. Face it, your explanation makes no sense. Kontiki's, OTOH, makes perfect sense. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
Originally posted by Eli
Second, why all the blabla about what would happen if China suddenly stops trading with you, when your total trade with Mexico is bigger and with Canada it's twice as big? Indeed, it would be worse if Canada and/or Mexico stopped trading with us. That's not likely to happen though. I guess people think China is going to abandon it's capitalism experiment. Third, how come your imports are almost twice as large as your exports? That makes no sense at all. I'm going to disagree with most people here. This doesn't have much to do with what the US does. It has more to do with what the world as a whole does. This is the market where people want to sell goods because they want dollars. They want dollars so that they can invest in our financial markets. This situation could be in for a big change in the future due to demographic changes. This change could start to come about in the next couple of years and certainly by 2010. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Errr...that's not an explanation. It's a consequence... Well in open economy macro virtually all the major variables are endogenous if you look hard enough. So whilst your comment is not wrong, it is pretty unhelpful. The original question was around how a country can import more than it exports. Lots of entertaining answers here (most partly right) but the key point to understand before you can get anywhere in analysing further is that the current account reflects one part of international transfers and in no way has to balance. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|