This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Mainstream theory concludes that the overall trade by ufl
deficit has nothing to do with the factors you list. They determine what stuff we import and export rather than the amount by which one exceeds the other.
The trade (current account) deficit is determined by saving (including government dissaving) and investment. If you want a little evidence that this story is right, go back a few years. It was pointed out a couple of decades ago that the U.S. was a massive importer of oil. One story that was out there went like: "If we could reduce our dependency on foreign oil, that would largely eliminate our trade deficit".
We did and it didn't.