Maggie's Farm

That's right. So let's look at the trend. Since UAH has been making observations:

UAHv5.6 TLT: 0.154 ±0.063 °C/decade

Notice that the margin of error is small compared to the size of the trend. The surface records over the same period show a very similar trend:

NOAA:    0.162 ±0.033 °C/decade
GISTemp: 0.172 ±0.037 °C/decade

So while the Menton may wail about how the surface records have been adjusted, they comport with satellite records over the same period. When completely different methodologies yield the same result, it lends confidence to the conclusion.

!

Which is contrary to the "Carnage Speech" Trump delivered at his inauguration. While the U.S. certainly has its share of problems, it has seen steady GDP and job growth for seven years.


Hardly. The central theme of Trump's speech was resentment. He defined two American tribes in inevitable conflict, and invoked the term "America First", which is linked to anti-Semitic, isolationists from America's past.

---
Think of the nations of the world as people in a room. There is France, who has stood with America from the beginning. And there, another loyal companion, Britannia. And some who were once enemies, now friends, such as Japan and Germany. Many admire America, and emulate its dress and manners. There are also adversaries in the room, but who find a way to compete without violence. There are some who always seem to complain, but if push came to shove, would rather be in the room with America and America's friends, than outside in the cold. There are a number of whom America is distrustful. There are a few who clearly have malicious intent. But America surrounds itself with its friends, and reaches out to its adversaries, and talks about common values, and how to make for a better world.

Then one day, the strongest and richest person in the room starts beating its chest, and muttering "What's in it for me?" then shouting "Me First! Me First! Me First!"

mudbug: I don't understand this outrage that Trump should promote policy that is beneficial to the US as its main objective.

Which is why we provided the analogy. America's long-term self-interest is bound up with its relationships to other nations. If U.S. policy devolves into merely the latest transactions, then long-term relationships, America's place in the world, and the spread of American ideals will suffer.

mudbug: Are you suggesting that the US should continue to make "you first" deals?

We're suggesting that America's long-term interests are best served by building relationships built on trust and mutual benefit.

IdahoBob: You are simply naive about France and the rest of our "friends". Yes indeed they DO in their own country say "me first" and they DO use tricks dirty and illegal to push the U.S. around. and they DO use us as a dumping ground for their products when it suits them.
There are wellsprings of goodwill among the people of the world. This goodwill is based on long-term relationships, trust built over generations. Besides, who else gives such cool kitsch


So? The U.S. is the world's primary hegemon, and one of the world's biggest exporters.

Trade generates more wealth, not less. It can also cause social disruption, so if you want the increased wealth that comes with trade, you also have to invest in education and infrastructure in order to compete in the global economy.

IdahoBob: Often these things are decided by votes in the UN with all our "friends" standing up with us. BUT when one of thee countries wants a construction project completed or a military asset built Holland, France, Germany and others jump in where American companies cannot.

Of course, corporations in other nations aggressively seek business (contrary to claims that they are sclerotic). However, Europe and other nations have been invaluable partners in isolating rogue regimes, such as with Iran and Russia. It does require negotiation, of course.

IdahoBob: What you are really seeing is, perhaps for the first time, is America acting like they aren't stupid!!!

"Me First! Me First! And you better do what I want!"

Bill Carson: Three words for you: "Oil for Food".

The Iraqi oil-for-food program was fraught with corruption, but most of the illicit money was pocketed through sales in Jordan and Turkey, as monitored by the U.S., which looked the other way.

Bill Carson: One man's "corruption" is another's "best interests" - way to catch up.

No. It wasn't in the long-term best interest of any of those involved in the corruption.

Bill Carson: Hand-waving -

That wouldn't be handwaving, but perhaps wrong.

Bill Carson: please provide evidence to support this assertion.

We were referring to the nations involved, not the persons, who may very well have profited considerably.

IdahoBob: the world’s biggest exporter, must export more than we import.

U.S. exports total about $1.5 trillion per year.

IdahoBob: When you exclude exports of raw materials (which IMHO we should not export) and goods and services actually purchased and consumed within the U.S.) our actual exports of value added goods are not that great

The top U.S. exports are machinery, electronics, air and space craft, and vehicles.

IdahoBob: AND are taxed and tariffed by all our trading partners.

In fact, the U.S. is part of several different trading blocks that have much reduced tariffs. Of course, this puts stress on American workers, who have to compete against foreign workers. Competition is also driving automation, which also puts stress on workers. That means workers have to be better trained and more flexible, in order to compete in the modern economy. [/i]

IdahoBob: You must have forgotten after 9/11 and we put Iraq on notice to rid themselves of WMDs that France, Germany and Russia delayed the UN action for months while each of these nations sought to erase the fact that THEY built the advanced facilities to create chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.

Iraq had already disarmed their WMD as of 9/11. As for French and German concerns about an invasion of Iraq, history has shown that those concerns were more than justified. That's what friends do. They warn you before you are about to make a huge mistake. That the right-wing in the U.S. resorted to name calling, only shows how degraded the conversation had become.

IdahoBob: YES! That is our government’s job. The U.S. citizens first !!

The biggest richest guy in the room is saying he never gets a fair shake, and that everyone is against him. Sure. That will get people in line, but everyone will see him as a bully, and not trust him in the future. Do you want this one transaction, or do you want a long-term business relationship?

As we said, American's long-term interests are best served by building relationships based on trust and mutual benefit.

IdahoBob: ALL of our trade agreements were written to benefit everyone but the citizens.

Open trade is difficult, but profitable in the long run. To compete, the U.S. needs to invest in infrastructure and education. However, more than likely, they will cut taxes for the upper classes, eliminate regulations, and call it a day. That's what happened the last time Republicans were in power, and that paved the way for the worst economic debacle in generations.

No other nation has the advantages of the American people, with vast resources, a strong market economy, and a highly educated, creative, and motivated workforce. Any country would be glad to trade their situation for that of the U.S. On the other hand, the middle class in India is as large as the entire population of the U.S. They have every right to a better life, and are willing to work hard to compete.

Bill Carson: That's right - Republicans thought - in the interest of "fairness" - that it was a good idea to allow folks working at McDonalds to assume jumbo mortgages.

The Administration stood by fecklessly while, a massive bubble formed in the shadow market, which, like all bubbles, was demand driven.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief." — Alan Greenspan

IdahoBob: So your response was...

A detailed response to each of your points:

• We noated that the U.S. is a major exporter. You falsely claimed that to be a major exporter, one has to export more than you import, which is not the case.

• You claimed the U.S. doesn't export value-added goods, which is simply not the case. The primary U.S. exports are manufactured goods. Indeed, the U.S. manufactures far more today than it did a generation ago.

• We responded to your point about tariffs by noting that the U.S. belongs to trading blocks with reduced tariffs.

• You brought up Iraqi WMD and 9-11. We noted that Iraq had already disarmed their WMD by the time.

• We noted that "America First" is a slogan with roots in anti-Semitic nativism, and that insisting on "Me first!" rather mutually beneficial relationships is self-defeating in the long run.

• We then discussed the advantages and disadvantages of open trade.

IdahoBob: Why shouldn’t our exports equal our imports?

You had originally stated the U.S. wasn't a major exporter, which was incorrect. Your actual concern appears to be the trade deficit.

The trade deficit depends on the economic circumstances. The U.S. is a very rich country, the U.S. dollar is the international reserve currency, so American consumers and businesses can buy goods very inexpensively from other countries. Some of this money flows back into the U.S. as foreign investment, boosting the U.S. economy. However, some is held as debt. This can cause problems, of course, but because the debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. still controls how the debt will be repaid.

IdahoBob: Why should the U.S. export raw materials. Why not process those materials here providing jobs for Americans?

In open markets, countries specialize in order to compete in the larger market. This provides overall scales of efficiency not available in smaller markets. China specializes in cheap manufactured goods, something previously seen in Japan, which now specializes in higher end products. The U.S. specializes in high technology, such as air and space craft, automated machinery, and software.

Merely keeping the resources in the U.S. doesn't provide jobs. That requires customers for products that U.S. workers produce. If you restrict trade, then you have fewer customers.

IdahoBob: The U.S. trading partners put tariffs on our goods that they import and we do not put tariffs on their goods that we import.

While all countries, including the U.S. restrict trade to some degree, trading blocs are regions with relatively open trade. You may want to provide specifics for discussion.

IdahoBob: But what I stated is that Holland, France and Germany were building advanced facilities in Iraq whose purpose was to manufacture chemical and biological WMD’s PERIOD!!

Yes, and the U.S. sold dual-use helicopters to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and provided intelligence to help them direct chemical attacks on Iran. At that point, the West was tilting towards Iraq to stop Iran. As unwise as that decision may have been, it was a policy to which the U.S. was a party.

IdahoBob: "America First" is a slogan with roots in anti-Semitic nativism. Where in the hell did you dig up that red herring?

From a history book, but you can read about it here: "While the America First Committee attracted a wide array of support, the movement was marred by anti-Semitic and pro-fascist rhetoric. Its highest profile spokesman, Charles Lindbergh, blamed American Jews for pushing the country into war."

IdahoBob: Open trade. If it is so great then make the agreements a single page and not 2000 pages of hidden quid pro quos and special interest give aways.

Oh, if only life were so simple. The U.S. may want open trade with Japan, but Japan, being a democracy, has to account for the political influence of rice growers. The U.S. wants to protect vehicle parts manufacturers and tobacco. And so it goes across a wide range of issues. What typically results is an agreement with a complex give-and-take.

IdahoBob: It should allow free trade and a reasonable tariff to compensate the citizens for what they lose in free trade.

If you have tariffs, other countries will also institute tariffs, and it will have the effect of restricting trade, the size of the markets will be reduced, specialization restricted, and the result will be reduced production.

The real problem with free trade is that it can cause disruption of local economies. Sometimes, entire regions may be affected. People are what is known in economics as "sticky", meaning it is hard for them to change professions, or to move where jobs may be found. Hence, free markets can often cause hardship, even among those who are working hard and playing by the rules. Most countries, therefore, have instituted industrial policies revolving around education, infrastructure, and research.

IdahoBob: What I said was in response to your statement that the U.S. is one of the world’s biggest exporters.

That's right. You said, "the world’s biggest exporter, must export more than we import", which is factually incorrect. What you probably wanted to address was the balance of trade.

IdahoBob: The difference between us is that I believe that our inputs cancel out our exports and thus with a negative balance on imports/exports we Americans are the losers.

American consumers (both individual and corporate) win, because prices are lower than they would otherwise be. A trade deficit also indicates demand for dollars. American producers can lose, but in a large diverse economy such as the U.S., and because U.S. dollars are the world's reserve currency, this is not necessarily the case. In particular, the U.S. is a very large and stable market with a highly motivated and educated workforce, so many of the dollars flow back as investment.

IdahoBob: We should not export raw materials we should process them and make jobs at home.

You ignored the points we raised. You don't create jobs by hording resources, but by finding customers. Limiting trade limits the markets available for producers. Furthermore, the U.S. exports a large amount of manufactured goods. Guess what? Many of them are made with raw materials imported from other countries.

IdahoBob: Germany taxes imports, Japan taxes imports, China taxes imports, even Canada taxes imports from the U.S.

All those countries, including the U.S. charge each other tariffs. Trade deals can lower barriers to trade. China has been lowering tariffs on non-agricultural products imported from the U.S., from 14% in 2001 to about 5% today. The U.S. charges about 3% on non-agricultural products imported from China. Trade deals can lower tariffs even further.

IdahoBob: So you opposed trying to stop Iran???

We opposed helping Saddam with WMD. The policy was very shortsighted.

IdahoBob: The world’s biggest car dealer must sell more cars than it buys. The world’s biggest coal company must sell more coal than it buys. We are playing second fiddle to other countries which protect their jobs and exploit our market.

When other countries invest in the U.S., Americans earn back that currency.

IdahoBob: It makes no sense to export raw materials.

Of course it does. With global markets, countries specialize. China makes low-quality manufactured goods, so they materials like wood. The U.S. makes technologically advanced goods, so they import materials like rare earth metals. Again, you don't make jobs by hording resources. You make jobs by finding customers.

IdahoBob: Tax imports! The hell with what other countries do.

The effect will be that other countries will also raise tariffs, meaning many goods will be more expensive for American consumers (including businesses), while markets will be reduced for American exporters. Consider that the American market is about 300 million people, while the global market is 7 billion people. The best response is, again, education, infrastructure, and research. This requires investment, though.

IdahoBob: To imply we helped them with WMD’s is a lie and you know it.

The U.S. provided Iraq with dual-use helicopters and intelligence required for the delivery of WMD during a hot war with Iran. Where do you think Saddam got the helicopters used for the Halabja attack? We understand why you don't want to admit your country's complicity, but the only people who are in the dark are the American people. It's the same with most American secrets. Your government isn't hiding them from the world. Everyone in Iraq knew about the abuses in Abu Ghraib, for instance. It's to hide the truth from you.

SweetPea: So where these helicopters that "the U.S." supplied black hawks?

No. The U.S. sold Iraq Hughes Defenders and Bell Huey helicopters, the latter suitable for "crop-dusting".

JM01: Nations have shared interests and that is it.

Yeah. Like when was the last time America's allies fought and died alongside American troops?

tennesseered: Thanks for making my day.

You're welcome. However, we note you didn't venture to answer the question.

DrTorch: Your explanations are inevitably incorrect, often supported by information which is readily shown to be as equally incorrect

Saying "You're wrong!" doesn't constitute an argument. If we made factual mistakes, that should be easy enough for you to show.