Nonsense. While the impact of complete autarky would be problematic; the U.S. would be far less "ground to a halt" than Germany, China, South Korea, France, The United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.... Why? Because the U.S. has the most developed internal economy on the planet; rich in natural resources, arable land, and a highly productive internal service producing sector.The fact is, without foreign trade, our economy grinds to a halt.
You will find that no other nation on the planet has a more developed internal (do you know what this word means?) economy than the United States. This is a fact.
Your use of the term "highly" is subjective. We can quantify the fact that we are "less dependent" than a high majority of the planet.That means we are highly dependent on intl trade
You act as though computer chips and oil are not produced in vast volume here in the United States. Autarky would be painful for everyone, but less painful for us!We can stop buying a lot of toys and our economy won't grind to a halt. We can't stop importing oil,or computer chips, or number of other goods without wrecking our economy.
Your strawman is a failure.You haven't shown any evidence that anyone besides yourself uses it in the way you have.
Have you not payed any attention to what i have been saying? relative to the rest of the international trading community, we are of the least reliant on international trade. Your reply, "But we import lots of oil!" does not refute this statement. The use of the terms more, less, least, and most imply inequality.I never disputed anything you said about Germany so this is a straw man. I also never said we are the most dependent on intl trade either.
The ratio provides a quantity which can be used in comparison to other nations allowing the use of more, less, most and least.I merely refuted your claim that your ratio is an accurate measure of independence on intl trade. Try to focus. You're grasping for an argument and your points are lacking coherence as a result
Why is this so hard to comprehend for some people; do you believe there is a difference between "Country A is dependent on oil" and "Country A is less dependent on oil than Countries B,C,D,...."? Stating that a country is dependent on international trade without quantifying the scope and magnitude accomplishes very little. A measurement based on comparison is implied. With that said, we can take it to another level by comparing what they are importing and exporting (comparing how much oil Germany imports with the U.S. for example), but this does not invalidate my position.And that statement has been proven wrong. It has been shown that one must look at what is being imported and exported, and the role those products play in the economy, in order to determine how dependent an economy is on intl trade. Even you agreed with this.
You still do not even understand my argument. How on earth can your point refute something you cannot grasp?I agree. There are many factors that have to be measured. That's MY point.
I want you to prove "the other words".You want me to prove a "maybe" statement?
Definitely not.DRZ said the same thing I did
See above.I made the same argument that DRZ did.