OtherGround Forums Real US economic stats tell the true story...

8 days ago
2/9/12
Posts: 5656

No one cares Pedro. 

8 days ago
12/6/16
Posts: 3920

High: When we spoke recently before the presidential election, you mentioned that the fastest growing economy for the next thirty years would be Mexico. Has your opinion changed due to the election? Could you walk through the advantages that Mexico has?

Zeihan: The countries that are going to do very well in the future have several factors going for them. One, they have a relatively young population and can consume a surprising proportion of what they produce and generate their own growth to a certain degree. Second, they need to have no international security issues, so they cannot be involved in any of the military conflicts that are about to crack the system. Third, they need the ability to participate in local regional supply chains to give them economies of scale and allow them to tap technology and capital from other sources. The three countries I anticipate being able to do that the best, in no particular order, are Myanmar, Indonesia, and Mexico.

In addition to having those things going for it, Mexico also has a number of other advantages. First, it is hard-wired into the American energy system now. They are importing a lot of the waste natural gas that comes out of shale fields so they are able to electrify their system in a way they have never done before. Second, if the Canadians get their way, given Brexit, the United Kingdom is going to get into NAFTA. If you take sixty-five million first world customers and merge them with the NAFTA system, Mexico is definitely the country that will benefit the most from that. Third is labor costs. Even in today’s environment and even without the global trade breakdown, Mexico is already cost-competitive with everyone in Southeast Asia. In fact, Mexico labor is now not only more skilled, but it is half the cost of Chinese labor. So with all that reshoring, Mexico is the number one beneficiary.

Obviously, what happens with the Trump administration is going to be critical. With Mexico, you have a supply chain with parts manufacturers and assembly on both sides of the border. The Mexicans basically take things that require less skill and less capital. The Americans take the parts of the chain that are more highly value added. For every job you generate in Mexico you probably generate three or four in the United States. Mexico is absolutely not stealing jobs, but when people see a low skilled facility in the United States pick up and go to Mexico, you then have a community in the United States that does not have that high value added capacity. It then becomes a political question even if the overall gain for the United States is substantial. We have not done a good job at retraining these people. We have not done a good job at providing them with other options, and that has generated a lot of the angst that led to the Trump phenomenon.

The question is how will Mexico handle this? If you let Trump’s team drive the question, then yes, you very easily could see meaningful trade barriers. I do not think it would lead to an American flat-out rejection of the NAFTA accord, but it could be a reinterpretation of a lot of informal barriers and an ignoring of the adjudication process that could really hurt not just Mexico but the United States. It is probably time for a broad scale renegotiation of the agreement. NAFTA was negotiated in 1990-1993, so it has already been twenty years. Just before 9/11, the George W. Bush administration started NAFTA II, which included security issues with the NAFTA accords and immigration. The Mexicans are bringing it to the table in an attempt to steer the talks. I think it is a very astute move. We just do not know what the Trump administration is going to do. Trade and Mexico were not listed on the topics that he wanted to tackle in this first month. I think it is pretty hopeful that we are going to be able to have some sort of progress on this that pacifies some of the more ardent anti-trade folks without trashing the U.S./Mexico relationship, which would be pretty bad for everybody. It is all a question of how you manage it.

My personal view is that there is going to be a wall, but I do not think it is going to be on the Northern border. The net migration from Mexico has been negative. It is Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Central American migrants that are coming up to the United States. A wall on the U.S./Mexican border that would be 2,000 miles long is beyond the capacity of the United States to patrol in an effective manner. But Mexico’s Southern borders are only 500 miles long and are already rugged terrain. You could fortify that. Mexico is far more paranoid about illegal migration than we are. That is something that the two countries probably could have a constructive relationship on if they can get past the rhetoric.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2016/12/05/reasons-why-the-us-will-dominate-the-world-economy-for-the-foreseeable-future/#704f95d8501e

 

The US is doing fine and will likely be doing so for the forseeable future.

8 days ago
2/19/14
Posts: 5619
HighInsideLegKick -

Not going to make many friends with this post Pedro! I still like ya though. 

 

If you ever came to Indiana we could definitely go fuck some shit up together. 

what part of indiana?

8 days ago
1/9/19
Posts: 1737

well this has been a very educational morning thanks to Pedro and Jinx!

8 days ago
7/13/17
Posts: 4068

Two percent real GDP growth is the new normal for the U.S. economy" obama

Two percent annual growth wasn’t even the “new normal” under President Obama, 1.64 percent was. Pitifully and sadly so.

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 8503
BZtown10 - 

Two percent real GDP growth is the new normal for the U.S. economy" obama

Two percent annual growth wasn’t even the “new normal” under President Obama, 1.64 percent was. Pitifully and sadly so.


You should tell the BEA that their data is wrong, because average quarter GDP growth under Obama being higher than 1.64%.

Who should I believe... The BEA, or a source that isn't the BEA...

One of those numbers, by definition, cannot be wrong. I think I'll go with that one and dismiss your incorrect claim of 1.64%.
8 days ago
8/23/11
Posts: 5516
Pratty - 

Come on.

do you really expect me to believe tax cuts made by an administration made up of uber wealthy white guys didn’t benefit the lower classes? 


why cant a tax cut benefit everyone?

Do you even pay taxes or understand what they are?

tell us.. how much in tax do you pay a year?

did the tax cut affect you? Are you paying the govt less in tax than you did last year?




8 days ago
7/31/09
Posts: 18753

They're also making 15 bucks an hour now but their employer can only afford to have them work 30 hours. 

8 days ago
1/2/15
Posts: 8095

The economy is judged solely on employment numbers? 

Oh pedro

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 34838

Just like "Ghensewhatever his name is", this guy lives in a 3rd world country and spends every day obsessing over the United States.

 

 

 

8 days ago
1/2/15
Posts: 8096
shen -

Just like "Ghensewhatever his name is", this guy lives in a 3rd world country and spends every day obsessing over the United States.

 

 

 

You actually think he's brown? 

 

I bet he's a skinny white dude with a patchy beard and blue hair 

8 days ago
3/13/17
Posts: 7953
Junnk - 

The economy is judged solely on employment numbers? 

Oh pedro


No, thats why I posted facts about Real GDP and debt.

8 days ago
3/13/17
Posts: 7954
theraskal - 

well this has been a very educational morning thanks to Pedro and Jinx!


BIG win!

8 days ago
1/2/15
Posts: 8097
Bilge Water -

"

African Americans had higher income prior to the Trump administration. A black household earned median income of $40,258 in 2017, the latest data available. That's below a 2000 peak of $42,348, according to the Census Bureau."

So it peaked in 2000, what was it under Barry O? Lower than 2000 as well? Lower than 2017 as well?

" most dramatic drop in black unemployment came under Obama, when it fell from a recession high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 to 7.8 percent in January 2017."

Wasn't Trump elected in 2016? What was the drop in black unemployment from his inauguration to January 2017? How about from his inauguration to present?

You're being very dishonest here. Not surprising coming from a Share Blue shill.

 

And black unemployment was mid 6% in Dec 2018. 

It's been going lower under trump 

8 days ago
4/24/07
Posts: 39461
Pedro Navaja - 
David@accu - 
Pedro Navaja - 
David@accu - 

Sure thing Orcus


Excellent rebuttal.


You're a troll. What's there to rebut?


Is it trolling to try to start a real discussion based on facts? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a troll. Better luck next time.


When are you ever trying to start a real discussion here? All you do is troll. If this happens to be one of the few times you aren't trolling then it's your own damn fault nobody believes you or really wants to engage with you. 

8 days ago
6/13/03
Posts: 23664
Bilge Water -


some garlic for Pedro

 

8 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 4161

who gives a fuck about the black unemployment rate or GDP?  economy is working better for me and that is all that matters

8 days ago
4/1/11
Posts: 2060

Everyone worked for the Gov under Obama  that money came from somewhere

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 4689
Again.
You do not live here.
You know nothing of what you speak.
We give exactly zero fucks about what you or any other foreigner thinks.

Go the fuck away or show me one damn American who gives a flying fuck what you think you know.

We do not tell you how to run your 3rd world shit-hole country.
Show us the same consideration.
8 days ago
3/3/18
Posts: 9515
Cuckoldberry Finn -

who gives a fuck about the black unemployment rate or GDP?  economy is working better for me and that is all that matters

In what way is it working better for you exactly?

8 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 4165
Ill Portents -
Cuckoldberry Finn -

who gives a fuck about the black unemployment rate or GDP?  economy is working better for me and that is all that matters

In what way is it working better for you exactly?

profits are up 2.38%

8 days ago
9/10/07
Posts: 1221
So Obama and Trump had basically the same economy yet Obama didn't give away $1.5 trillion in tax revenue to his rich friends?
8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 4697
Brasky - So Obama and Trump had basically the same economy yet Obama didn't give away $1.5 trillion in tax revenue to his rich friends?

Actually no they did not. They are not even similar.

Compare their numbers.
8 days ago
9/10/07
Posts: 1222
Dryfly - 
Brasky - So Obama and Trump had basically the same economy yet Obama didn't give away $1.5 trillion in tax revenue to his rich friends?

Actually no they did not. They are not even similar.

Compare their numbers.

Obama's does look better, but I'm trying to appease the MAGA crew.
8 days ago
9/20/10
Posts: 1264

Didnt read thread. Did OP just got laid off?