Trump's ethanol waivers are sparking rebellion in farm country

[Aquapod770]

(08-27-2019, 11:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, you know, just understand that the tariffs are hurting the Americans more than China and it's a bad policy.

You know, maybe that instead.

I am completely on your side here, but it is actually hurting China more (not to say it's not hurting America, it definitely is. Kind of a mutual destruction). Here is a lot of good info on the "trade war". Fair warning, it's a lot of reading: 

https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2019/august/leaving-china-countries-might-benefit-from-relocation-production/

https://insights.abnamro.nl/en/2019/08/macro-weekly-playing-with-fire/

https://www.johnsonbank.com/Resources/Articles/2019-03-21-As-Smart-As-a-Fifth-Grader

https://www.pgim.com/wps/wcm/connect/0f771be7-416d-4562-81a2-4abce1bb65ea/PGIMFixed+IncomeImplicationsofaUSChinaTradeDeal.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

[Benton]

(08-28-2019, 11:36 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I am completely on your side here, but it is actually hurting China more (not to say it's not hurting America, it definitely is. Kind of a mutual destruction). Here is a lot of good info on the "trade war". Fair warning, it's a lot of reading: 

https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2019/august/leaving-china-countries-might-benefit-from-relocation-production/

https://insights.abnamro.nl/en/2019/08/macro-weekly-playing-with-fire/

https://www.johnsonbank.com/Resources/Articles/2019-03-21-As-Smart-As-a-Fifth-Grader

https://www.pgim.com/wps/wcm/connect/0f771be7-416d-4562-81a2-4abce1bb65ea/PGIMFixed+IncomeImplicationsofaUSChinaTradeDeal.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

And that's how it has to work.

China isn't going to change if there's no reason to. But they have to have a lot of growth to maintain things. Cut into that growth and they're going to open a real conversation on how to make things work for wveryone.

Unfortunately, were doing it about two decades late, and we're not doing it with full support of our trade partners. But it's a start.

[Dill]

(08-28-2019, 12:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, your criticism of the current China policy is exactly what China wants.  That's you, I hope inadvertently, supporting China.

LOL so YOU know what China wants. 

Yes, the "weakness" of democracy is that voters can be fickle, and voters determine leaders and influence policy. Very different from authoritarian countries like China. But some think that "weakness" is part of the reason democracies are generally better places to live, and "strength" is why authoritarian systems are generally not.

No doubt Chinese leaders would like democratic "weakness" to work in their favor, so US voters will contest Trump's trade policies. That's good for China. At the moment.

So I agree with you that Xi et al. would like to see more of these Dino types out there questioning their own government and "doing what China wants." 

And Trump doesn't want to see more voters like Dino. That's for sure.  Enough traitors in Congress who hate America. Same party as Dino, too. SIDING WITH THE ENEMY.

Safe to say that YOU aren't "for China," right?  Anyone else on this thread FOR CHINA instead of the US?

(08-28-2019, 12:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, Dill's muslim bias is based on his obvious muslim bias.  He mitigates muslim extremism while enhancing Israeli "atrocities"
Oddly, no.  Just you and Dill.  There was another, but enough said.

Not quite enough said.  You've had a deal of difficulty specifying dill's Muslim bias, while continuing to call it "obvious." 
That's ok if "truthiness" is your standard, but you ought to acknowledge that is your standard.

Looks like the choice here is between ignoring Israeli atrocities or "enhancing" them by mere factual recall, which no doubt "mitigates" the extremism of Muslims defending their homes.  Unbiased friend of Israel or "Muslim bias"?  Simple choices. Black and white.

Strength vs Weakness. Israel or Muslim "extremists"? China or the US? Friends vs enemies/animals. "Obvious" biases.

As neutral analytic options disappear, truthiness saturates the whole.

[Benton]

(08-28-2019, 04:37 PM)Dill Wrote: .

No doubt Chinese leaders would like democratic "weakness" to work in their favor, so US voters will contest Trump's trade policies. That's good for China. At the moment.
.

Largely it's worked for them for a few decades. American politicians know policies are harmful long-term, but it keeps prices low short term and that's good for reelection. Good for big donors, too.

[GMDino]

Trade wars are good & easy to win!

... Great Patriot Farmers will remain loyal!

... Tariffs are paid by China, not Americans!

... It's really all the Fed's fault!

... You know, businesses have nobody to blame but themselves if the trade war tanks them https://t.co/UfLVZ8U3ux

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 30, 2019

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2019, 04:37 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL so YOU know what China wants.

It's patently obvious to anyone paying attention and in possession of moderate mental faculties.  

Quote:Yes, the "weakness" of democracy is that voters can be fickle, and voters determine leaders and influence policy. Very different from authoritarian countries like China. But some think that "weakness" is part of the reason democracies are generally better places to live, and "strength" is why authoritarian systems are generally not.

Ahh, I see your dislike of me caused you to draw conclusions about my argument that simply don't exist.  I'll be sure to keep this in mind as I read the rest of this inanity.

Quote:No doubt Chinese leaders would like democratic "weakness" to work in their favor, so US voters will contest Trump's trade policies. That's good for China. At the moment.

It's good for China, "all the time"

Quote:So I agree with you that Xi et al. would like to see more of these Dino types out there questioning their own government and "doing what China wants." 

Incorrect analysis, per the norm.  China wants short term discomfort on the part of US voters to push them to vote for people who will return to business as usual.  Short sighted, uninformed voters worried about their immediate comfort is what China is counting on to win this fight.

Quote:And Trump doesn't want to see more voters like Dino. That's for sure.  Enough traitors in Congress who hate America. Same party as Dino, too. SIDING WITH THE ENEMY.

Safe to say that YOU aren't "for China," right?  Anyone else on this thread FOR CHINA instead of the US?

Well, judging by the posts, it appears your describing at least Dino and yourself.

Quote:Not quite enough said.  You've had a deal of difficulty specifying dill's Muslim bias, while continuing to call it "obvious." 
That's ok if "truthiness" is your standard, but you ought to acknowledge that is your standard.

I don't have any difficulty describing that, I simply quote your posts.

Quote:Looks like the choice here is between ignoring Israeli atrocities or "enhancing" them by mere factual recall, which no doubt "mitigates" the extremism of Muslims defending their homes.  Unbiased friend of Israel or "Muslim bias"?  Simple choices. Black and white.

Not the topic of the thread, please do stay on topic.

Quote:Strength vs Weakness. Israel or Muslim "extremists"? China or the US? Friends vs enemies/animals. "Obvious" biases.

As neutral analytic options disappear, truthiness saturates the whole.

Any attempt by you to portray yourself as a neutral arbiter of the truth can only be met with laughter and ill disguised scorn.

(08-28-2019, 04:57 PM)Benton Wrote: Largely it's worked for them for a few decades. American politicians know policies are harmful long-term, but it keeps prices low short term and that's good for reelection. Good for big donors, too.

Don't interrupt Dill.  He's too busy trying to castigate me for speaking the truth than to actually listen to it.

[Dill]

(09-02-2019, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Yes, the "weakness" of democracy is that voters can be fickle, and voters determine leaders and influence policy. Very different from authoritarian countries like China. But some think that "weakness" is part of the reason democracies are generally better places to live, and "strength" is why authoritarian systems are generally not.

Ahh, I see your dislike of me caused you to draw conclusions about my argument that simply don't exist.  I'll be sure to keep this in mind as I read the rest of this inanity.

Hmm. My first statement here appears to agree with your claim that China relies "on the weaknesses of a democratic system, e.g. being subject to the fickle whim of the voters, to prevail." Did I get that wrong? Did you mean to say something else?

The rest is a general comment about why some prefer democratic "weakness" to authoritarian "strength." 

Rather than arguing that I am right or wrong about that preference, you call my statement a "conclusion about your argument" which you will be sure to "keep in mind as [you] read the rest of this inanity." 

Could you perhaps state in your own words what you take my "conclusion about your argument" to be?  It would go a long ways towards showing you did understand the points in my post and your response was not a lot of scattershot wild swinging.

(09-02-2019, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: Not quite enough said.  You've had a deal of difficulty specifying dill's Muslim bias, while continuing to call it "obvious." 
That's ok if "truthiness" is your standard, but you ought to acknowledge that is your standard.

I don't have any difficulty describing that, I simply quote your posts.

Quote:Looks like the choice here is between ignoring Israeli atrocities or "enhancing" them by mere factual recall, which no doubt "mitigates" the extremism of Muslims defending their homes.  Unbiased friend of Israel or "Muslim bias"?  Simple choices. Black and white.

Not the topic of the thread, please do stay on topic.

Dino noted something comparable in the form of your judgments, when you cast him as someone who  "supports China" or me as an "apologist for Muslim extremism."  So I am not "off topic" when I expand on your response, as that affects the quality and credibility of the posts you address to us about China and Trump tariffs.

The point both Dino and I are making is that you convert ordinary, neutral arguments about political issues into an opposition between US and THEM, such that people who disagree with you are on THEIR side, defending them.  You don't disagree you are saying we are on THEIR side, do you?

That is why your claims that it is "obvious" I apologize for "Muslim extremism" cannot be supported by "simply quoting my posts."  The claim is based upon an inference, and at least one unstated premise, that you won't or can't articulate.  

That you employ a mode of fallacious argument "only" with Dino and me is hardly a cogent defense of this tactic, regardless of thread or topic.

[Dill]

(09-02-2019, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Strength vs Weakness. Israel or Muslim "extremists"? China or the US? Friends vs enemies/animals. "Obvious" biases.
As neutral analytic options disappear, truthiness saturates the whole.

Any attempt by you to portray yourself as a neutral arbiter of the truth can only be met with laughter and ill disguised scorn.
Don't interrupt Dill.  He's too busy trying to castigate me for speaking the truth than to actually listen to it.

Well now that's the thing.  The ideal/standard I appeal to here is not "neutral arbiter of truth." I choose to present myself as 1) someone who attempts to grasp the factual ground of an issue before pronouncing judgment on it or the arguments of others,  and 2) someone who does not substitute "laughter and ill-disguised scorn" for argument while presenting myself as "speaking the truth."  I reject all forms of "poisoning the well" followed by appeals to "the obvious." I.e.,  I don't defend my claims as "obvious" and so beyond need of explanation or support, or call others' arguments "inane" (especially when unable to demonstrate I understand them).  

To put this another way--there is a NEUTRAL mode of discussing political issues which involves trying to understand all aspects of an issue before reaching conclusions about it (conclusions which can remain open to revision in light of new information/arguments), and it doesn't involve denigrating the character and motives of people with different views along the way.  It involves making sure you understand what people mean or think they are saying, especially before you judge them enemies of the people.

Were I to systematically convert disagreement with my views on China or Muslims or Israel into a "defense of the enemy," I would be collapsing that neutral analysis into something more akin to propaganda. All the aforementioned "neutral options" are gone then, and what remains is mostly name calling and bluff "laughter."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-02-2019, 01:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmm. My first statement here appears to agree with your claim that China relies "on the weaknesses of a democratic system, e.g. being subject to the fickle whim of the voters, to prevail." Did I get that wrong? Did you mean to say something else?

The rest is a general comment about why some prefer democratic "weakness" to authoritarian "strength."

Again, you miscast my statement.  What am I saying is patently obvious to someone without an agenda.  I could explain further but you're honestly not worth the effort as it would simply generate another ill reasoned response from you further mischaracterizing what I'm actually conveying.  Oddly, Benton, who does not have an agenda, appears to complete get it.  

Quote:Rather than arguing that I am right or wrong about that preference, you call my statement a "conclusion about your argument" which you will be sure to "keep in mind as [you] read the rest of this inanity." 

Could you perhaps state in your own words what you take my "conclusion about your argument" to be?  It would go a long ways towards showing you did understand the points in my post and your response was not a lot of scattershot wild swinging.

I could, and did, but see above why I won't be bothering with doing so with you.

Quote:Dino noted something comparable in the form of your judgments, when you cast him as someone who  "supports China" or me as an "apologist for Muslim extremism."  So I am not "off topic" when I expand on your response, as that affects the quality and credibility of the posts you address to us about China and Trump tariffs.

Yes, you and Dino do seem to generate a lot of the same type of posts.  I also didn't say he supports China, merely that he is acting exactly how they hope he, and others, will.  A better way to say it would be that he's a dupe for China or that he's dancing to their tune.  

Quote:The point both Dino and I are making is that you convert ordinary, neutral arguments about political issues into an opposition between US and THEM, such that people who disagree with you are on THEIR side, defending them.  You don't disagree you are saying we are on THEIR side, do you?

No, I don't.  I accuse you of having an anti-Israeli and pro muslim bias because your posting history positively screams it.  Please believe I am far from the only person to notice this.  As to your erroneous assertion about Dino and China, please see above.

Quote:That is why your claims that it is "obvious" I apologize for "Muslim extremism" cannot be supported by "simply quoting my posts."  The claim is based upon an inference, and at least one unstated premise, that you won't or can't articulate.  

No, it's based on your posting history and nothign else.

Quote:That you employ a mode of fallacious argument "only" with Dino and me is hardly a cogent defense of this tactic, regardless of thread or topic.

I find myself lacking the willpower to have a reasoned argument with a person(s) determined to to see it.  Again, that I have this issue with only the two of you (now) can just as easily be read as an indictment of you as it could of me.  Not surprisingly you've chosen the latter.  Quite simply, you're wearying to discuss topics with the majority of the time.  Correcting your constant misinterpretations, deliberate or otherwise, makes it a banal and odious task that I often choose to avoid.

[Dill]

(09-02-2019, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, you miscast my statement.  What am I saying is patently obvious to someone without an agenda.  I could explain further but you're honestly not worth the effort as it would simply generate another ill reasoned response from you further mischaracterizing what I'm actually conveying.  Oddly, Benton, who does not have an agenda, appears to complete get it.  

I could, and did, but see above why I won't be bothering with doing so with you.

Yes, you and Dino do seem to generate a lot of the same type of posts.  I also didn't say he supports China, merely that he is acting exactly how they hope he, and others, will.  A better way to say it would be that he's a dupe for China or that he's dancing to their tune.  

No, I don't.  I accuse you of having an anti-Israeli and pro muslim bias because your posting history positively screams it.  Please believe I am far from the only person to notice this.  As to your erroneous assertion about Dino and China, please see above.

No, it's based on your posting history and nothign else.

I find myself lacking the willpower to have a reasoned argument with a person(s) determined to to see it.  Again, that I have this issue with only the two of you (now) can just as easily be read as an indictment of you as it could of me.  Not surprisingly you've chosen the latter.  Quite simply, you're wearying to discuss topics with the majority of the time.  Correcting your constant misinterpretations, deliberate or otherwise, makes it a banal and odious task that I often choose to avoid.

Benton made a point about China that no one here disagrees with, but which has nothing to do with your style of argument--the issue addressed in my post. It is in fact an example of that neutral sort of analysis I was holding up as ideal standard. When he calls Dino a "dupe" for China he will no longer be in that neutral mode.

I just explained why "patently obvious" doesn't cut it, especially followed by claims others "misinterpret" you, when you cannot even articulate the misinterpretation. You aren't "correcting misinterpretations" when you just repeat that your original claim is obvious "to anyone without an agenda," or that you are "far from the only one to agree" with it. All still just appeal to an impression called "obvious."

I ask that you support arguments with evidence and respect logical consistency--especially when making claims involving the character of other posters. And vague reference to "posting history" which "screams" isn't evidence, no matter how many adjectives you add.

But here as on many other threads, you find it all "wearying" and "banal" when I ask you turn from personal attack back to civil discourse which respects rational norms and protocols of evidence.  

You are really just asking for a pass to fling around claims--including personal attacks--based on impressions, without all the bother of legitimating support. You cannot demonstrate, for example, that I am an "apologist for Muslims." But you want to keep calling me that anyway. If Dino presents evidence Trump's tariffs may be hurting the US more than China, you don't want to show that they do not, or why that shouldn't matter. No, you shift to Dino personally. In disagreeing with you, he is "carrying China's" water, "supporting China," and a Chinese "dupe"--thus converting disagreement with you to siding with THEM. THEY are depending on him to win. People "without an agenda" do not argue like this.

No way can all this be "as easily be read as an indictment of [us] as well as it could of [you]."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-02-2019, 03:59 PM)Dill Wrote: But here as on many other threads, you find it all "wearying" and "banal" when I ask you turn from personal attack back to civil discourse which respects rational norms and protocols of evidence.  

You've adequately demonstrated that is not at all what you want.  You want to engage in rampant pedantry, lecture and condescension.  Your posts are wearying and frequently don't even address what was previously stated.  Feel free to disagree, lord knows I could not care less.  Feel free to consider this the end of this back and forth and infer anything you like regarding said consideration.

[Dill]

(09-02-2019, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You've adequately demonstrated that is not at all what you want.  You want to engage in rampant pedantry, lecture and condescension.  Your posts are wearying and frequently don't even address what was previously stated.  Feel free to disagree, lord knows I could not care less.  Feel free to consider this the end of this back and forth and infer anything you like regarding said consideration.

LOL  Sure. Somehow.  Too "wearying" to substantiate though.

Final points then.

1. "Condescension" is suggesting a fellow poster is a "dupe" who carries water for China. You don't get to play that card anymore.

2. Not good if you think affirming standards of civil, rational discourse is "rampant pedantry," but yes that was a lecture, and a good one if you combine posts #27, 30 and 32.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-02-2019, 04:35 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL  Sure. Somehow.  Too "wearying" to substantiate though.

What would be the point with you?

Quote:Final points then.

1. "Condescension" is suggesting a fellow poster is a "dupe" who carries water for China. You don't get to play that card anymore.

Nope.  I, correctly, pointed out that his reaction is exactly what China wants.  Feel free to dispute this.

Quote:2. Not good if you think affirming standards of civil, rational discourse is "rampant pedantry," but yes that was a lecture, and a good one if you combine posts #27, 30 and 32.

Dear god, just when one thinks you've reached the limit of your rampant egotism.  

[BakertheBeast]

(09-02-2019, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You've adequately demonstrated that is not at all what you want.  You want to engage in rampant pedantry, lecture and condescension.  Your posts are wearying and frequently don't even address what was previously stated.  Feel free to disagree, lord knows I could not care less.  Feel free to consider this the end of this back and forth and infer anything you like regarding said consideration.

[BakertheBeast]

[GMDino]

While this has been enlightening (and dictionary requiring) none of it changes the fact that Trump chose a path that hurts the same farmers he claimed to care about.  And they aren't happy about it.

So while he is doing "something" (that most of us admit is misguided at the least and damaging at the worst) the article rightfully points out he is hurting his own supporters.  And no amount of socialistic behavior on his part is making that any better.

No matter what "China wants".

[GMDino]

See you "losers and haters".  Only TRUMP knows how to win this trade war! and he doesn't need "allies"!

Oh you just wait until "HE" wins!

....And then, think what happens to China when I win. Deal would get MUCH TOUGHER! In the meantime, China’s Supply Chain will crumble and businesses, jobs and money will be gone!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2019

 

For all of the “geniuses” out there, many who have been in other administrations and “taken to the cleaners” by China, that want me to get together with the EU and others to go after China Trade practices remember, the EU & all treat us VERY unfairly on Trade also. Will change!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2019

What a dope.

[Dill]

(09-02-2019, 06:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What would be the point with you?

Nope.  I, correctly, pointed out that his reaction is exactly what China wants.  Feel free to dispute this.

Dear god, just when one thinks you've reached the limit of your rampant egotism.  

Still with me?  Dispute what, exactly, that Dino's "reaction" is what China wants or that you "pointed out" it was?

1. Dino's policy views might or might not be "what China wants," but that doesn't automatically make them incorrect assessments of the current trade war. It would not, prima facie, make them bad.  In an open policy discussion, the first standard ought to be whether facts and inferences are accurate, not whether they are "what China wants."  I'm pretty sure China wants Americans to shame each other into bad policy decisions. Let's avoid that.

2. There are many ways to say that someone's actions are "what China wants." You could say "That policy would benefit China and hurt the US in the long run," for example. But instead you said Dino was "carrying water" for China and "supporting China," and a "dupe." Exemplar of Democratic "weakness." That is condescending and denigrating. You have done that sort of thing with many posters before, including me. I feel quite free to say that Dino is not a dupe and was doing none of those things.  You flipped him into "the enemy" and he was quite right to note that is part of a pattern, impulsive even.

As far as "what would be the point"--taking the hard, "wearying" road of eschewing personal attack and supporting statements with evidence would improve your arguments.  To borrow some of your evaluative vocabulary, appeals to "the obvious" are "weak," and not improved by claims that mysteriously silent others agree; evidence based arguments which draw no conclusions beyond what their premises allow are "strong" no matter who agrees with them.  Personal attack is "weak"--what people use instead of argument.

My rampant egoism has been pretty much constrained by these standards. However highly I might regard myself, I would never presume my claims true just because they are "obvious" to me, nor presume to call people dishonest, egotistical , or hypocrites or liars for not accepting them at face value. I would take whatever time necessary to explain them to any person of good will.

[Dill]

(09-03-2019, 12:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: See you "losers and haters".  Only TRUMP knows how to win this trade war! and he doesn't need "allies"!

Oh you just wait until "HE" wins!

....And then, think what happens to China when I win. Deal would get MUCH TOUGHER! In the meantime, China’s Supply Chain will crumble and businesses, jobs and money will be gone!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2019

 

For all of the “geniuses” out there, many who have been in other administrations and “taken to the cleaners” by China, that want me to get together with the EU and others to go after China Trade practices remember, the EU & all treat us VERY unfairly on Trade also. Will change!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2019

What a dope.

LOL don't trust Shanghai Dino. 

That last tweet looks like it is aimed directly at Bels.

[Dill]

(08-28-2019, 01:34 PM)Benton Wrote: And that's how it has to work.

China isn't going to change if there's no reason to. But they have to have a lot of growth to maintain things. Cut into that growth and they're going to open a real conversation on how to make things work for wveryone.

Unfortunately, were doing it about two decades late, and we're not doing it with full support of our trade partners. But it's a start.

What do you make of this?--increasing deficit following tariffs, and one person claims this is partly the result of the tax cut, which has increased purchase of Chinese goods.  Agree we should be working with trade partners, but not convinced just "doing something" is the right way to go. We need to know what we are doing.

Despite promises, Trump's trade deficits are only growing
https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-deficit-world-china-6c0e421a-872d-4232-951c-511e0c785f68.html

Why it matters: While economists agree that trade deficits aren't a good way to measure a trade relationship, they are the metric Trump fixates on, made campaign promises about and uses to evaluate relationships with other countries.

• Throughout his campaign, Trump vowed that he would wipe away the U.S.'s trade deficits: "You will see a drop [in the trade deficit] like you’ve never seen before.”
  

Reality check: Among the U.S.'s 15 biggest trading partners, the trade balance has moved in the wrong direction for Trump in 10 of those countries between 2016 and 2018, while the aggregate trade deficit has jumped from $503 billion to $628B.

• While Trump can explain the deficit spike with China as a short-term sacrifice for long-term benefit, it doesn't account for the wider trend.
  

The latest: The U.S. trade deficit in the first 6 months of 2019 is even bigger than in the last two years.
What's going on: Trump's tax cuts are as much to blame for the increase in the trade deficit as anything else, writes Axios Markets editor Dion Rabouin:

• More money in Americans' pockets leads to more consumption, often of Chinese-made goods.
• The tax cut helped boost the value of the dollar, which makes imports to the U.S. relatively cheaper.
  

The big picture: Trade deficits mean we buy more from a country than they buy from us, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the relationship is unfair, writes Axios business editor Dan Primack.

• For example, you have a “trade deficit” with your local grocery: you give them money and get food in return.