New Gordie Howe Bridge Hate Advertisement - Courtesy of Matty Moroun

[Wesley Mouch]

What if the government bridge doesn't break even, but loses money?

Raise the tolls and probably lose more business and more money?

Wesley Mouch, can't believe you admitted that. "There's no reason the new bridge needs to pay it's own way." Typical big government tax and spender.

My comment wasn't an endorsement of that position. Just a statement of fact.

I-75 between Detroit and Toledo cost a lot to build, but we do not charge a toll to recover those costs. There's nothing different about this bridge. Government could decide to build it at taxpayer expense, and provide it as public infrastructure.

Roads and bridges both enhance trade, and thus contribute to our wealth.

You say operating the bridge at a loss doesn't matter because trade [[you think) will increase. How's increased trade been working out for the U.S. other than for larger trade deficits?

There's no doubt whatsoever that increased trade brings wealth to both sides of the transaction.

Trade deficits are not bad. They just sound bad and are used by populists for their own purposes. Tariffs are bad, and harm everyone -- but give false comfort to those who do not understand that trade benefits everyone, always.

Why don't you tell us how increased trade will benefit Michigan as opposed to other states. How much traffic passes right through MI and heads to the rest of the country, and Mexico. A money losing bridge is corporate welfare with our tax dollars. Which we're good at by the way.

Anything that benefits the "rest of the country" is good enough for me. Roads and [[even international bridges) provide markets for our products. And they enable others to sell us things we consume at the best possible price. Everybody benefits. I'm also quite in favor of helping Mexico too. If we want fewer illegal immigrants, benefitting Mexico is wise.

I have to say this again. Trade benefits everyone. Trade deficits are not bad. They just sound bad.

see: NYTimes: Trump Hates the Trade Deficit. Most Economists Don’t

One interesting excerpt:

The United States actually runs a trade surplus in services with China, as it does with many other countries, in part by attracting Chinese students to study at American colleges, which counts as an export.

[M. Brown]

Is construction really supposed to start on Sunday on the bridge towers?

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...7580132&row=17

[canuck]

You know what Gordie Howe woulda said: What the Puck?

[3WC]

Wesley Mouch: Your comments above are lucid but not persuasive.

First and foremost, you have no valid support whatsoever that a new bridge, by whomever it may be built, will increase trade.

Common sense demands that you provide reasons why you claim a new bridge will increase trade. It may diminish the time it takes to move goods to and from the countries by increasing the size of the customs plaza and the number of customs people, but if that's a reason, trade will increase as you seem to claim, and therefore will bridge traffic until we're back to the current crossing times.

Show us one valid reason you believe trade will increase because of a shiny new bridge.

I take issue with almost all of your unsupported statements about the impact of trade in general. Of course trade deficits are "bad." It's true we have a trade surplice in services, as we do with Canada, but that kind of trade doesn't use bridges.

"Anything that benefits the 'rest of the country' is good enough for me." Why not expand that viewpoint to include "the rest of the world?" No borders, literal free trade with no restrictions of any kind. More of our manufacturing companies will move to the third world country with the lowest wages etc. How do you think that'll work?

I could go on and on but you get the idea we don't agree on a lot, which is not necessarily a bad thing. May the best viewpoint succeed.

[ABetterDetroit]

Let’s not forget the polititions Matty bought and delivered to the taxpayers of Detroit and Michigan.

Moroun has also courted U.S. Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, whose district includes the Ambassador Bridge, and her son, Kwame Kilpatrick, now mayor of Detroit. Moroun and his family became the largest contributors to her reelection campaign.

How bad is it really when a magazine marketed directly at capitalists calls you “The Troll Under the Bridge” ?

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1...l#19bbf9324dbd

[Jason]

Trade deficits aren't "bad". Trade deficits are the necessary result of the market optimizing itself according to each country's strengths.

For example, if I have a natural knack for making shoes [[I can make them at the highest quality at the lowest cost), and you have a natural knack for making clocks, then making shoes [[becoming a shoe maker) is the most productive/efficient/profitable way for me to use my time. Trying to make my own clocks is a bad use of my time, it makes more sense for me to buy them from someone who will make them better and cheaper than me.

So I buy your clocks. Suddenly there's a trade deficit between us! But when I bought your clock, did I really loose out on the deal? I got a clock better and cheaper than I could have done myself. I lost money but I received a clock that has equal value to that money [[the market determined the value/price of the clock and I agreed to that evaluation when I decided to purchase it). So you got $100 and I got $100 worth of clock. Neither of us "lost" anything. And with the time I saved I was able to make/sell a few extra shoes, so I made even more money than I would have otherwise.

[Honky Tonk]

Trade deficits aren't "bad". Trade deficits are the necessary result of the market optimizing itself according to each country's strengths.

For example, if I have a natural knack for making shoes [[I can make them at the highest quality at the lowest cost), and you have a natural knack for making clocks, then making shoes [[becoming a shoe maker) is the most productive/efficient/profitable way for me to use my time. Trying to make my own clocks is a bad use of my time, it makes more sense for me to buy them from someone who will make them better and cheaper than me.

So I buy your clocks. Suddenly there's a trade deficit between us! But when I bought your clock, did I really loose out on the deal? I got a clock better and cheaper than I could have done myself. I lost money but I received a clock that has equal value to that money [[the market determined the value/price of the clock and I agreed to that evaluation when I decided to purchase it). So you got $100 and I got $100 worth of clock. Neither of us "lost" anything. And with the time I saved I was able to make/sell a few extra shoes, so I made even more money than I would have otherwise.

Where you lose is when you sell your shoes for $40, [[a pair) and then buy a clock for $120 [[ea.)

[Jason]

But the alternative to that is to sell a fewer number of $40 shoes, and then buy the same clock for $200. [[and on the other end, the clockmaker would spend $80 on the same shoes, and would sell less clocks)

And either way I paid $120 for a clock worth $120. The value of my assets is the same after the transaction, just the value was moved from the cash column to the clocks column. If I paid $120 for $120 worth of gold did I lose value?

[Richard]

Why the debate on trade,the key word of the day is FAIR?

President Trump says,let's review these trade practices and apply fairness to it.

The other countries do not say,okay let's review and see where we are at,who knows maybe nothing would have even changed.

But the responses are F that,you want a trade war you got one.

Which to me says the country getting the better end of the deal is pissed because they do not want to lose that advantage.

Our consumer market is 325 million strong,there is nothing that we cannot produce in this country and maybe outside of cobalt we have all of the resources that we need to produce.

Through our trade practices,have allowed countries that would have never had the opportunity before excess to markets,thier economic base would not be what it is,we have propped up more markets that would not have even existed.

Look around you,it is not hard to see the cost of what it has done long term in this country,I do not have a problem with trade,if you have a problem with fair trade then,bye,have a nice day.

The only reason our US based companies need to reach outside our boundaries is because we the consumer pushed them outside in the interest of saving a dollar.

We decided American companies come second to any other country and gave them no choice and created a need for massive export trade when one did not exist.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
The only reason our US based companies need to reach outside our boundaries is because we the consumer pushed them outside in the interest of saving a dollar.

The other obvious reason for going abroad is to find consumers to buy our products, and increase our wealth.

Wealth is increased when we can provide someone else a benefit, and they give us money! It matters not whether they are white, brown, yellow, or purple people. Trade creates not only wealth, but peace and understanding.

[Richard]

The other obvious reason for going abroad is to find consumers to buy our products, and increase our wealth.

Wealth is increased when we can provide someone else a benefit, and they give us money! It matters not whether they are white, brown, yellow, or purple people. Trade creates not only wealth, but peace and understanding.

So do you believe that seeking fair and balanced trade is anti trade?

[Wesley Mouch]

So do you believe that seeking fair and balanced trade is anti trade?

Yes.

Fair? You are adding politics where it doesn't add value.

Balanced? Its a meaningless measure. Trade is balanced by its nature. Each party gives up something, to get something else? Why? Because it is to their benefit. You only buy what you gives you a benefit. You buy at the best price. That frees you up to buy more other stuff [[things, food, companies, whatever). That is the creation of wealth.

Restrictions to trade are used best by entrenched interests. If you want to support corporate America [[or oligarchical Russia), ask your politicians to make trade 'balanced' and 'fair'. Google, Monsanto, and United Technologies will thank you.

[bust]

Restrictions to trade are used best by entrenched interests. If you want to support corporate America [[or oligarchical Russia), ask your politicians to make trade 'balanced' and 'fair'. Google, Monsanto, and United Technologies will thank you.

Not Google.

Google, Apple, Tesla, HP and other Silicon Valley firms imperiled by proposed Trump import tariffs and Republicans’ ‘border adjustment tax’
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/...mport-tariffs/