Trump's faulty trade math may not make America greater, or richerWASHINGTON (Reuters) - By U.S. President Donald Trump’s math, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement and other deals will largely pay for the massive tax cuts his cabinet laid out earlier in the week.  He is likely off by a factor of close to 10 - or more - according to trade and tax economists who say it does not make sense to think of the world in the two-dimensional, money-in-my-pocket or money-in-yours way that Trump did in a Thursday interview with Reuters.  The president, for example, said that given the current $61 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico, the United States would be better off if the two countries did not trade at all, saying “You’ll save yourself a hell of a lot of money.” The former real estate developer’s economic assessment appeared to overlook the ways in which a total halt to trade between the two neighbors would ripple through both nations - changing prices, currency values, jobs and wages, arguably helping some industries but damaging others. The net impact of Trump’s calculations, which run counter to most widely accepted views of the benefits of trade, are hard to predict, said Claude Barfield, a trade expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “These views about the trade deficit and its alleged negative impact...are nonsense, and are views he has held since the 1980s,” said Barfield. “It could happen,” he said of a hypothetical severing of ties between the United States and Mexico, “but the things you would do to make it happen would be hugely disruptive. You’d have to think what are the first- and second-order effects,” as industries reorganize and consumers adapt.  In the case of Mexico, the American companies that exported a quarter of a trillion dollars of goods and services to that country last year would be out a customer, and likely cut jobs. Those American companies that tried to replace the $323 billion in Mexican imports would likely do so at a higher cost — assuming they are in the United States to begin with. There is no guarantee that if Trump were to seal the border with Mexico that it would “save” the United States any money, said Marcus Noland, a trade economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. It may simply reduce consumption through higher prices charged by domestic suppliers, or lead to increased imports from a different country.     “Americans seem to really like guacamole,” Noland said, “but the idea that we are going to have giant greenhouses and lots of avocados and limes - the fact that we are purchasing them from the Mexicans rather than producing them at home tells you producing them at home is more expensive. We can stop trading with the Mexicans, and have $60 billion less in consumption.” Since consumption accounts for a large part of the U.S. economy, that is not an outcome Trump would want, though it would be one way, economists note, to achieve the trade balance the president and his advisers regard as important.  Trump told Reuters: “There is no such thing as a trade war when you have a deficit.” Most economists disagree with the notion that the trade deficit matters much to a country as large and self-sufficient as the United States.  Trade at that scale in particular is shaped by global savings and investment patterns that in recent years have favored the United States.  By the statistics most widely accepted among economists, the U.S. position with the rest of the world has been steadily improving as investment flows into the country from abroad and supports millions of jobs.  The current account deficit – which includes trade flows, investment, and other financial transfers across borders –  has been shrinking for more than a decade and is now less than 2 percent of gross domestic product. As far as the impact of trade on the federal deficit - a separate concept reflecting how much the government spends and how much it collects from businesses and households - Trump said that he was not worried that his plan to cut taxes will result in a sea of red ink “because we will do trade deals that are going to make up for a tremendous amount of the deficits.”  Economists, however, say any connection is circuitous, felt through channels like an increase in tax payments from new job holders or stronger corporate profits — but hard to estimate and likely small. Even if Trump achieved his wildest success, and eliminated the United States’ $500 billion trade deficit solely through increased exports that boosted gross domestic product on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it would do little to dent the estimated $7 trillion in government deficits his tax plan is projected to generate over the next decade.  Alan Cole, an economist at the Tax Foundation, said that every dollar of gross domestic product generates about 17.6 cents in federal government revenue, meaning the $500 billion trade shortfall would translate into just $88 billion in new taxes.  Even that, he said, is wildly generous. “You have to say where is the new production coming from, which people, which places?” Cole said. “Will it be new factories being built, and if so why haven’t they been built already?”  politicsNews
trump faulty trade math may make america greater richerwashington reuters by president donald trump math negotiating north american free trade agreement deals largely pay massive tax cuts cabinet laid earlier week he likely factor close according trade tax economists say make sense think world way trump thursday interview reuters the president example said given current billion annual trade deficit mexico united states would better two countries trade saying you save hell lot the former real estate developer economic assessment appeared overlook ways total halt trade two neighbors would ripple nations changing prices currency values jobs wages arguably helping industries damaging others the net impact trump calculations run counter widely accepted views benefits trade hard predict said claude airfield trade expert conservative american enterprise institute these views trade deficit alleged negative impact nonsense views held since said airfield it could happen said hypothetical severing ties united states mexico things would make happen would hugely disruptive you think effects industries reorganize consumers adapt in case mexico american companies exported quarter trillion dollars goods services country last year would customer likely cut jobs those american companies tried replace billion mexican imports would likely higher cost assuming united states begin there guarantee trump seal border mexico would save united states money said marcus poland trade economist peterson institute international economics it may simply reduce consumption higher prices charged domestic suppliers lead increased imports different country americans seem really like guacamole poland said idea going giant greenhouses lots avocados times fact purchasing mexican rather producing home tells producing home expensive we stop trading mexican billion less since consumption accounts large part economy outcome trump would want though would one way economists note achieve trade balance president advisers regard important trump told reuters there thing trade war most economists disagree notion trade deficit matters much country large united states trade scale particular shaped global savings investment patterns recent years favored united states by statistics widely accepted among economists position rest world steadily improving investment flows country abroad supports millions jobs the current account deficit includes trade flows investment financial transfers across borders shrinking decade less percent gross domestic product as far impact trade federal deficit separate concept reflecting much government spends much collects businesses households trump said worried plan cut taxes result sea red ink trade deals going make tremendous amount economists however say connection circuits felt channels like increase tax payments new job holders stronger corporate profits hard estimate likely small even trump achieved widest success eliminated united states billion trade deficit solely increased exports boosted gross domestic product basis would little dent estimated trillion government deficits tax plan projected generate next decade alan cole economist tax foundation said every dollar gross domestic product generates cents federal government revenue meaning billion trade shortfall would translate billion new taxes even said wildly generous you say new production coming people places cole said will new factories built built already politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Trump's faulty trade math may not make America greater, or richerWASHINGTON (Reuters) - By U.S. President Donald Trump’s math, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement and other deals will largely pay for the massive tax cuts his cabinet laid out earlier in the week.  He is likely off by a factor of close to 10 - or more - according to trade and tax economists who say it does not make sense to think of the world in the two-dimensional, money-in-my-pocket or money-in-yours way that Trump did in a Thursday interview with Reuters.  The president, for example, said that given the current $61 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico, the United States would be better off if the two countries did not trade at all, saying “You’ll save yourself a hell of a lot of money.” The former real estate developer’s economic assessment appeared to overlook the ways in which a total halt to trade between the two neighbors would ripple through both nations - changing prices, currency values, jobs and wages, arguably helping some industries but damaging others. The net impact of Trump’s calculations, which run counter to most widely accepted views of the benefits of trade, are hard to predict, said Claude Barfield, a trade expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “These views about the trade deficit and its alleged negative impact...are nonsense, and are views he has held since the 1980s,” said Barfield. “It could happen,” he said of a hypothetical severing of ties between the United States and Mexico, “but the things you would do to make it happen would be hugely disruptive. You’d have to think what are the first- and second-order effects,” as industries reorganize and consumers adapt.  In the case of Mexico, the American companies that exported a quarter of a trillion dollars of goods and services to that country last year would be out a customer, and likely cut jobs. Those American companies that tried to replace the $323 billion in Mexican imports would likely do so at a higher cost — assuming they are in the United States to begin with. There is no guarantee that if Trump were to seal the border with Mexico that it would “save” the United States any money, said Marcus Noland, a trade economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. It may simply reduce consumption through higher prices charged by domestic suppliers, or lead to increased imports from a different country.     “Americans seem to really like guacamole,” Noland said, “but the idea that we are going to have giant greenhouses and lots of avocados and limes - the fact that we are purchasing them from the Mexicans rather than producing them at home tells you producing them at home is more expensive. We can stop trading with the Mexicans, and have $60 billion less in consumption.” Since consumption accounts for a large part of the U.S. economy, that is not an outcome Trump would want, though it would be one way, economists note, to achieve the trade balance the president and his advisers regard as important.  Trump told Reuters: “There is no such thing as a trade war when you have a deficit.” Most economists disagree with the notion that the trade deficit matters much to a country as large and self-sufficient as the United States.  Trade at that scale in particular is shaped by global savings and investment patterns that in recent years have favored the United States.  By the statistics most widely accepted among economists, the U.S. position with the rest of the world has been steadily improving as investment flows into the country from abroad and supports millions of jobs.  The current account deficit – which includes trade flows, investment, and other financial transfers across borders –  has been shrinking for more than a decade and is now less than 2 percent of gross domestic product. As far as the impact of trade on the federal deficit - a separate concept reflecting how much the government spends and how much it collects from businesses and households - Trump said that he was not worried that his plan to cut taxes will result in a sea of red ink “because we will do trade deals that are going to make up for a tremendous amount of the deficits.”  Economists, however, say any connection is circuitous, felt through channels like an increase in tax payments from new job holders or stronger corporate profits — but hard to estimate and likely small. Even if Trump achieved his wildest success, and eliminated the United States’ $500 billion trade deficit solely through increased exports that boosted gross domestic product on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it would do little to dent the estimated $7 trillion in government deficits his tax plan is projected to generate over the next decade.  Alan Cole, an economist at the Tax Foundation, said that every dollar of gross domestic product generates about 17.6 cents in federal government revenue, meaning the $500 billion trade shortfall would translate into just $88 billion in new taxes.  Even that, he said, is wildly generous. “You have to say where is the new production coming from, which people, which places?” Cole said. “Will it be new factories being built, and if so why haven’t they been built already?”  politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: trump faulty trade math may make america greater richerwashington reuters by president donald trump math negotiating north american free trade agreement deals largely pay massive tax cuts cabinet laid earlier week he likely factor close according trade tax economists say make sense think world way trump thursday interview reuters the president example said given current billion annual trade deficit mexico united states would better two countries trade saying you save hell lot the former real estate developer economic assessment appeared overlook ways total halt trade two neighbors would ripple nations changing prices currency values jobs wages arguably helping industries damaging others the net impact trump calculations run counter widely accepted views benefits trade hard predict said claude airfield trade expert conservative american enterprise institute these views trade deficit alleged negative impact nonsense views held since said airfield it could happen said hypothetical severing ties united states mexico things would make happen would hugely disruptive you think effects industries reorganize consumers adapt in case mexico american companies exported quarter trillion dollars goods services country last year would customer likely cut jobs those american companies tried replace billion mexican imports would likely higher cost assuming united states begin there guarantee trump seal border mexico would save united states money said marcus poland trade economist peterson institute international economics it may simply reduce consumption higher prices charged domestic suppliers lead increased imports different country americans seem really like guacamole poland said idea going giant greenhouses lots avocados times fact purchasing mexican rather producing home tells producing home expensive we stop trading mexican billion less since consumption accounts large part economy outcome trump would want though would one way economists note achieve trade balance president advisers regard important trump told reuters there thing trade war most economists disagree notion trade deficit matters much country large united states trade scale particular shaped global savings investment patterns recent years favored united states by statistics widely accepted among economists position rest world steadily improving investment flows country abroad supports millions jobs the current account deficit includes trade flows investment financial transfers across borders shrinking decade less percent gross domestic product as far impact trade federal deficit separate concept reflecting much government spends much collects businesses households trump said worried plan cut taxes result sea red ink trade deals going make tremendous amount economists however say connection circuits felt channels like increase tax payments new job holders stronger corporate profits hard estimate likely small even trump achieved widest success eliminated united states billion trade deficit solely increased exports boosted gross domestic product basis would little dent estimated trillion government deficits tax plan projected generate next decade alan cole economist tax foundation said every dollar gross domestic product generates cents federal government revenue meaning billion trade shortfall would translate billion new taxes even said wildly generous you say new production coming people places cole said will new factories built built already politicsnews