If corporations are engaging in a "capital strike"

[Zalatix]

86. Now you're discrediting a blurb by the SF Fed Reserve? And now you're fabricating stuff, too.

You dismiss it by calling it 'simplistic'? Is that the best you've got?

The second link was NOT some rebuttal a dude sent to a free newsletter link. It turns out that the link actually expired a few days ago. So your claim is in fact a lie. You're so desperate now that you not only are avoiding salient points but you are also making up lies. But ever since you accused me of "not reading the material I post", you've been smokescreening. You're mad because you can't take me off course or off-message with your attempts to distort the truth.

It just so happens that I also have a backup link by PBS about this subject. It says the same thing that I've been saying.

Paul Solman: Trading with those outside the United States means selling to them and buying from them. When we spend more abroad than we earn from abroad, THAT is a trade deficit.

Why is it important? Because the money has to come from somewhere and for years, we've been borrowing it.

Does it relate to our national debt? Yes, by a slightly circuitous route. When we spend more abroad than we earn, the rest of the world has more of our dollars than we have of their currencies, right? What do they DO with our dollars? They can buy ASSETS in America like the Japanese used to: Rockefeller Center, the Pebble Beach golf course, Columbia Pictures. They can buy U.S. stocks. And/or they can LEND us back the dollars, for which they get - to use 'Guys and Dolls' terminology - our "marker": our Treasury bills, notes, and bonds - our IOUs.

Now it's your turn to learn how to read.

As for growth? Most of the growth has gone to the 1%. That is directly due to the fact that they sent so many manufacturing jobs overseas. Americans bought tons of cheap Chinese crap that breaks inside of a year or a few months, and threw it on landfills. Most of that growth came from borrowing and people had to borrow because their wages stagnated and the cost of living kept going up. The growth might have happened to a lesser extent if we kept more jobs in America and people didn't have to go into debt to make ends meet - and it would have been more evenly distributed.

Once again, I also notice that you failed to address my totally valid and logical point that in order for Americans to keep having access to the cheap goods that you talked about here, foreign workers' wages must remain low. Thus you are also responsible for DEFENDING the impoverishment of other nations. I see you had nothing to say about the US Government fighting against better wages for Haitian garment workers. I wonder why you bypassed that.

PS: Nice attack on Occupy. We all know party you're REALLY on the side of, and it ain't the Democrats.