News » Letters

Trump trading

1 comment

Trump trading

President Trump is expected to sign two executive orders that aim to identify every trade abuse and "non-reciprocal practice" that contribute to the trade deficit. In the president's opinion, the United States has been losing the trade war for quite some time. However, there isn't a winner or loser when trading occurs. Both parties benefit from a trade, each country receiving something they couldn't otherwise produce at all or as cheaply. For example, the United States imports most of our clothes because we find it cheaper and trade for these garments.

When looking at a trade deficit, it is misleading to make judgments about whether or not a trade is "fair." For example, the U.S. may import clothes by trading large sums of money, making the trade seem like China is benefiting more than the U.S. On the contrary, eventually China will use these American dollars to buy goods from the U.S. that it cannot produce as cheaply as we can, such a pharmaceuticals. As a result, both countries benefit and have the goods they desire.

Restricting our trade with large trading partners such as China will decrease the wealth of both countries. Homeland production of clothes and other good we import will make these goods much more expensive. Instead of being concerned about the fairness of a trade, the U.S. should focus on the repercussions that would happen if Trump's trade restrictions are put in place.

Lindsey Worthington

Little Rock

Our state is best known for its history: the Little Rock Nine, beginning of the superstore Walmart, even the Crater of Diamonds, which is the only active diamond mine in the U.S. What's one thing that's going on in our state that no one wants to talk about but needs to be addressed? At Catholic schools, members of the LGBT community are able to be punished with expulsion just for telling someone they are a part of that community. We tell our children to be themselves, and while some parents don't, some parents do support their children upon finding out their child considers himself or herself as part of the LGBT community.

America is said to be the "melting pot" of the world, with so many diverse people and choices. People are encouraged to be themselves, as it's not interesting to be around 20 people who speak, act and dress the same. Everyone wants a name for themselves — whether it's known or not, having your name out there encourages others to make a change, to inspire others. How come people are able to be expelled for a life choice people are born with? Yes, you can pull out of the school before an expulsion, but what's the point in that?

Arkansas is a relatively small state, but we can make such a big change in how the LGBT community is treated. Being kicked out of school for being associated with LGBT? It's an idiotic concept. Can we change this, for equality?

Kylie Kirger


From the web

In response to Arkansas Blog posts on Congress keeping health care perks that all other Americans will lose under their Obamacare-gutting plan and the Alaska state lawmaker who said women in the sticks get pregnant so they can get a free trip to Anchorage for an abortion:

Typical GOP approach to everything. Take care of themselves and their rich buddies and screw the rest of us. Loss of the ACA will INCREASE everyone's health care costs, even those with company-provided health care, as hospitals spread that uncompensated care as far as possible over every procedure. Rural hospitals are likely to not be able to survive, but since [U.S. Rep. French] Hill lives in the rich area of the district, no issue for him.

couldn't be better

The new rules are for thee, not for ME!" 

The Party of Personal Responsibility strikes yet again.



This is not a health care bill. This is a naked tax cut for millionaires, wearing health care as pasties.


Okay, I've got a few questions for our fairly new daddy, Sen. Tom Cotton. Did he and wife Anna personally cover the medical bills, sans insurance, from her two pregnancies? What about the health issues I understand the youngest suffered after birth? How about ongoing pediatric coverage for both children? 

What!? You mean we the people provided coverage for these events? Why? Are they better than a couple of my neighbors whose jobs provide (1) minimal insurance or (2) no insurance? 

How about the single pregnant daughter of a friend? What? She shouldn't have gotten pregnant? Well, she did. So now what?

OK, I've been remiss in not pillorying the other 12 senators, so feel free to ask the rest of 'em similar questions. 

If, however, you tend to breathe fire as I did upon reading of the Alaskan senator's abortion/vacation comments, you might want to have a couple of cool-headed assistants beside you when you accost the fools. 

Just for your protection against legal action, you understand. I really don't care what happens to them. May they all go grizzly hunting with dud ammo.


From the web in response to the May 5 Arkansas Blog post, "Judge Griffen responds to judicial disciplinary complaint":

The Supreme Court had better be careful if they take on the Hon. Wendell. There are only seven of them, so they are outnumbered.



Showing 1-1 of 1


Add a comment