- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,185
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You are being very misleading. You said that your formula measures economic dependency, and your formula failed to take into account what was being traded.
The international trade ratio can be applied in a relative sense to compare the trade dependence between two (or more) nations. "What is being traded" falls more in line with microeconomic analysis, as opposed to the macro setting described previously.
The fact is, without foreign trade, our economy grinds to a halt.
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.
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.
That means we are highly dependent on intl trade
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.
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.
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!
You haven't shown any evidence that anyone besides yourself uses it in the way you have.
Your strawman is a failure.
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.
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. :lol: The use of the terms more, less, least, and most imply inequality.
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
The ratio provides a quantity which can be used in comparison to other nations allowing the use of more, less, most and least.
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.
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.
I agree. There are many factors that have to be measured. That's MY point.
You still do not even understand my argument. How on earth can your point refute something you cannot grasp?
You want me to prove a "maybe" statement?
I want you to prove "the other words".
DRZ said the same thing I did
Definitely not.
I made the same argument that DRZ did.
See above.
Last edited: