Sentences with phrase «trade deficit because»

I am in the bottom right box, in which a cut in the U.S. fiscal deficit will cause no change in the U.S. trade deficit because it will be matched by a decline in household savings as unemployment rises, as consumer debt rises, or both.

Not exact matches

«To whatever extent anyone believes that the US has the advantage in a trade war because it has a big deficit (so it has more to gain) one could say the same for China in a capital war because it has the bigger deficit,» he wrote.

Autos are expected to be one of the most contentious parts of the talks because the sector accounts for the lion's share of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico.

«Despite these gains, there have been calls for ripping up the agreement because of the US trade deficit with Korea.

Japan was conspicuously absent from a list of U.S. allies that would be exempt from new American tariffs, possibly because of Trump's displeasure with the bilateral trade deficit the U.S. has with Japan.

The connection is the other way around: BECAUSE the dollar is the largest reserve currency, the US gets away with large trade deficits.

If it doesn't, there is no way the trade deficit can decline because they are equal by definition.

U.S. investment exceeds U.S. savings, and the United States runs a trade deficit that is by definition equal to the gap between investment and savings.1 It also runs a capital account surplus equal to the gap because this is the amount of net foreign capital inflow that bridges the gap, and the trade account and the capital account for any country must always balance to zero.

According to this, if the fiscal deficit declines, total savings will rise, and because investment will be unaffected, inevitably the trade deficit must decline.

He also said he wants South Korea to pay the cost of the U.S. THAAD anti-missile defense system, which he estimated at $ 1 billion, and intends to renegotiate or terminate a U.S. free trade pact with South Korea because of a deep trade deficit with Seoul.

Trump told Reuters in an interview Wednesday that «we have helped to build China because they have taken out so much money in terms of trade deficits with this country.»

His view, as articulated both on Twitter and at Tuesday's press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, is that trade wars are good for the United States — in fact, «good, and easy to win» — because we currently run a trade deficit.

Because crazy as it may seem, it was the real estate bubble that brought in the foreign exchange — in the form of mortgage loans denominated in foreign currencies — that financed their structural trade deficits.

That's partially because growth in real domestic investment is almost always associated with an expanding trade deficit (a regularity of the savings - investment identity - see Eating Our Seed Corn for more on this), and also because import growth drives other aspects of measured productivity growth, as explained above.

Chinese trade surplus: Because Beijing's decision would reduce the Chinese capital account deficit, it would necessarily also result in a reduction in the Chinese current account or trade surpluses.

U.S. trade deficit: Because Beijing's decision would reduce the overall U.S. capital account surplus, it would also reduce the U.S. current account and trade deficits.

Generally speaking a currency will fall because of a trade deficit, not because it is being reduced.

That's because the overall trade deficit is governed by macroeconomic factors, including the relative growth rates of countries, the value of their currencies, and their saving and investment rates.

How the U.S. trade deficit will affect growth in the U.S. economy depends on whether American businesses are already able to invest as much as they desire to expand production or are unable to do so because of insufficient savings.

«It's not surprising that the deficit is up because in year one there has been a wide gulf between Trump's fiery trade rhetoric and action.»

Until we understand this do not expect the global crisis to end anytime soon, except perhaps temporarily with a new surge in credit - fueled consumption in the US (which will cause the trade deficit to worsen) and more wasted investment in China (which, because it is financed with cheap debt, which comes at the expense of the household sector, may simply increase investment at the expense of consumption).

The failure of the trade deficit to improve substantially has been largely because U.S. consumer spending and investment have not come back in line with income.

Because of U.S. trade intervention, in other words, U.S. jobs gains in industries competing with Mexico would be more than offset by U.S. jobs losses as a larger overall American trade deficit undermined other American industries.

The United States is a net importer of Chinese capital, for example, because it must finance its trade deficit with China, and its trade deficit with China is a consequence not of capital flows that may distort trade but rather because of high manufacturing costs in the United States, with expensive labor almost always fingered as the main culprit.

Chinese trade surplus: Because Beijing's decision would leave the Chinese capital account deficit unchanged, it would have no impact on the Chinese current account or trade surpluses.

Canada's trade surplus with the U.S. stands out because it runs a deficit with the rest of the world.

Last year, they did so because they were afraid of a North Korean war; now, with the North Korean problem on an apparent path towards resolution, it's the Trump administration's chance to target China with revenge plans in order to make up for its trade deficit.

Since 2002, almost 250,000 manufacturing workers have lost their jobs because of the high dollar and our huge and growing trade deficit with developing Asian countries. Many are older workers who will typically face a long stretch of unemployment, followed by employment in a new job at much lower wages.

Autos and auto parts are particularly important because our combined trade deficit in autos and auto parts from Canada and Mexico is $ 84.6 billion annually, which is the vast majority of our total trade in goods deficit with our neighbors.

You may inflate your way out of your debt problem but you're not going to grow your way out of the debt problem, so let's get behind that and if the dollar got too strong then the impotence from the white house would be to have more tariffs because they are hell bent on shrinking this trade deficit so when Kudlow discusses that, he ought to be very careful about where he is going because this white house, Peter Navarro and Wilbert Ross will push for a weaker dollar because a weaker dollar is Mnuchin and Wilbert Ross both said in Davos, is sending soldiers to the ramparts in the trade war that exists every day.

Certainly the Japanese, so its all being done so — with the — Donald Trump wanting to turn around the trade deficit, you can't help but say hey maybe they are actually onto something because they have an independent central bank well --(unintelligible) the independent central bank that goes upon its course based on what its seeing here you know based on domestic economic activity, while everybody else is setting it to international standards then tariffs become the — I guess the alternative especially when the feds is raising the interest rates and they're the only central bank really raising interest rates... I know... the bank of England went half a basis point, quarter basis point and they are project to go a quarter basis point tomorrow which we will see.

We have just demonstrated that countries do not have trade surpluses or deficits because of the exchange rate.

By focusing on trade and labor, he implies that the dollar is weakening only because of the trade deficit, not because of military spending and capital flight.

With bank debt at 2 trillion causing debt deflation, a slump in output, supermarkets losing profits because of poverty, a slump in output, a massive trade deficit that requires a massive boost of sovereign currency issue, I would say he is in the neoliberal mold, not the Labour one, and probably not that competent.

And does it make a difference based on how the USD is doing against other currencies (i.e., if it's only weakening against the Canadian dollar because oil prices shoot up, or if it's weakening against all currencies based on trade deficits)?

I think GDP is more relevant than GNP to the debate at hand because we are trying to understand the effects of macro variables (gov» t deficit spending, credit creation, trade deficits, etc.) on profit margins in the US economy.

Because India's imports of coal grew by 31 % this year... And just to cheer you all up, «India's coal imports are likely to touch a whopping 185 million tonnes (MT) by 2017, almost 20 % of the international dry - fuel trade amid widening demand - supply deficit, according to Planning Commission.»