# Strantor's plan to save america

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,512
so, should we engage in the Keystone pipeline, or not?
Yes, by all means, and we should be one country, not 2, if you would have us. And yes, I realize that my statement has more than ample potential to be spun as "I just want Canada for it's oil" but that's not the case.

#### GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
1,817
it's really not the oil, but rather the estimated 100,000 jobs that it will create from construction to maturation. Should American 'protectionism' disguised as a 'buy Amercian' mandate preclude Canada from access to the American economy on the southern end of the project.

Up here, we have the same desire to 'buy Canadian', but we understand that stable world economies come via trading relationships on a global level.

With all due respect, I doubt that Canada's needs would be serviced through political unification.

My point is that protectionism has the danger of injury before cure.

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,512
Well, the word protectionism has been thrown around in this thread a few times, so I looked it up. Seems yes, what I'm describing is protectionism. But the end goal is not to exist in a protectionist economy, but to exist in a stable economy. what we have is not stable; we are hemorraging all of our assets at an alarming rate. Are you saying that a society who spends more than they earn as a steady-state practice can survive? What do you propose we do?

EDIT: and yes, I have no doubt it will bring injury before the cure. I've already said that a few times. it has to get worse before it can get better, and there is a cure at the end of it.

#### GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
1,817
Are you saying that a society who spends more than they earn as a steady-state practice can survive? What do you propose we do?
haul in government spending. I do agree with make work schemes such as infrastructure.

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,512
haul in government spending. I do agree with make work schemes such as infrastructure.
It's not the Government's spending that's the problem. It's the people's spending, and where they are spending it. The government pulls money from the economy, wastes some, and then redistributes it back to the economy. that's to be expected, and we could definately cut back on the waste. The main problem is the people are sending their money outside the country, and it never comes back. That's the spending/earning I'm talking about. Cutting back on government spending will only slow the rate, as I've said. Even if the government disbanded the military, stopped paying themselves, and flushed all the social programs tomorrow, we would still be declining because of the trade deficit.

#### GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
1,817
well I think what we're seeing today, is that all countries have that same problem, basically the cost of our lifestyles has put us deeply in debt, and it's payback time. We can't spend our way out of this, as that's the cause, not the cure. I just don't believe that artificial inflation in deflationary times will be productive, unless one believes we better crash quickly so we can get on the road to recovery.

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,512
well I think what we're seeing today, is that all countries have that same problem, basically the cost of our lifestyles has put us deeply in debt, and it's payback time. .
What? how can all the countries have a nagative tade balance? That's functionally not possible; somebody somewhere is selling more than they're buying.

to America's:

and to china's

actually, this map pretty well sums it up, the balance of trade map:

We can't spend our way out of this, as that's the cause, not the cure.
Well I can definately agree on that point.
I just don't believe that artificial inflation in deflationary times will be productive, unless one believes we better crash quickly so we can get on the road to recovery.
Sure, why drag it out? It's going to happen no doubt about it. The numbers say it has to.

#### Attachments

• 31.4 KB Views: 30
• 9.3 KB Views: 31
• 23.1 KB Views: 30

#### GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
1,817
Canada's largest export to the US is crude oil, while it's largest import is automobiles. Where do you think the jobs are? With that comparison, the larger the deficit, the more jobs produced in the States.

We want a fair share of the American markets, but we also realize that global relationships are productive for all economies.

We as well have concerns with imports from China, but we also know that China will emerge as one of the largest consumers.

Last edited:

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,512
Yes, I'm starting to think along different lines since post #107. According to the map, the Philippines has the largest trade surplus of any country. I have been to the Philippines, and can attest to the fact that it is not the world's most prosperous country. The philippines has a government system based off ours. It would be hard for me to beleive that the Philippines' poverty problem is caused by greedy rich people at the top (either government or private sector) reaping all the benefits from the surplus; I beleive Manny Pacquiao (or the owner of SM Malls) is the richest person in the country. Up to this point, I've been thinking of a country's economy like a business; for example:
A company makes necklaces.
Every year they purchase 100,000$worth of beads Every year they sell 75,000$ worth of neckalces
Every year they donate 10,000$to less fortunate companies Every year they spend 15,000$ fixing up their plant
This means they lose 50,000$per year and won't be in business for much longer Well, there has to be more to it than that, or else the Philippines would be a major economic power. So what is the missing link? what am I not seeing? I see your point about the oil. There is a lot of power in oil, and not just BTU. A lot of money comes out of the ground for not much effort (proportionally, compared to auto manufacturing). I think this is part of it, but doesn't explain everything. #### GetDeviceInfo Joined Jun 7, 2009 1,817 Yes, I'm starting to think along different lines since post #107. According to the map, the Philippines has the largest trade surplus of any country. I have been to the Philippines, and can attest to the fact that it is not the world's most prosperous country. The philippines has a government system based off ours. It would be hard for me to beleive that the Philippines' poverty problem is caused by greedy rich people at the top (either government or private sector) reaping all the benefits from the surplus; I beleive Manny Pacquiao (or the owner of SM Malls) is the richest person in the country. Up to this point, I've been thinking of a country's economy like a business; for example: A company makes necklaces. Every year they purchase 100,000$ worth of beads
Every year they sell 75,000$worth of neckalces Every year they donate 10,000$ to less fortunate companies
Every year they spend 15,000$fixing up their plant This means they lose 50,000$ per year and won't be in business for much longer

Well, there has to be more to it than that, or else the Philippines would be a major economic power. So what is the missing link? what am I not seeing?

I see your point about the oil. There is a lot of power in oil, and not just BTU. A lot of money comes out of the ground for not much effort (proportionally, compared to auto manufacturing). I think this is part of it, but doesn't explain everything.
I don't think it's not what your seeing, but what your ignoring;
Massive Government Spending

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,512
I don't think it's not what your seeing, but what your ignoring;
Massive Government Spending
ok, lets compare the numbers between what we're losing to government spending and the trade deficit:
spending: 6.2tillion
revenue: 4.5 trillion
announced today that total July exports of $178.0 billion and imports of$222.8 billion resulted in a goods and services