Trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's GDP.
Trade deficits are net detrimental to their nation's GDP.
Among both credible economist whuch are proponents or opposed to the concept of pure free trade, few (if any) of them refute the fact, (rather than opinion) regarding trade deficits detrimement to their nation's gross domestic product, (i.e. GDP).
Due to their nation's net balance of interational trade, the GDP of suplus trade nations were increased, and were were reduced for trade deficit nations. Economists do not refute annual trade deficits detrimental affects upon their nation's GDP and they certainly do not contend that a nation's annual trade deficits were net beneficial to the nation's GDP.
Unless a nation enjoys effectively “full employment”, trade deficits are particularly detrimental to the nation's numbers of jobs which to some extent affects wage rates. Trade deficits consequentially affect enterprises that are more sensitive to the financial conditions of wage-earning families. Respectfully, Supposn
... Sure, but there's no advocating going on . I'm totally against war. That doesn't in any way argue as to whether it's possible wars accelerate growth over longer periods of time which they quite possible do. similartly with 'busts'.We can't conclude that busts don't accelerate growth over time just because we don't want busts.
Chezlaw, Regardless if seeking war's is or isn't an optimum economic policy, it's not being advocated because the remedy is more detrimental than the illness. For that same reason, few if any credible economists advocate policies to deliberately induce economic booms and bust cycles. That option is off of the discussion table (unless the booms we create will have no drastic busts).
Bear in mind, proponents of any economic remedies, (including my advocacy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_cer... ), all contend our remedies fully justify whatever downside those remedies may consequentially induce or encounter. But eggs can't be served unless their shells are eventually cracked open. Respectfully, Supposn
We dont advocate war because it is awful. Nothing to do with the longer term effects on the boom and bust cycle.
We dont advocate war because it is awful. Nothing to do with the longer term effects on the boom and bust cycle.
Chezlaw, for many, possibly the majority of USA families who experienced the depression that commenced in 1929, that was no less awful than the war that followed.
Many people in the USA have never personally experienced poverty, but some among them do understand and emphasize with those who have done so. My readings, and discussions with my uncles, aunts, and parents all contributed to my understandings of concepts, and my conclusions regarding poverty. Even after the war began, my parents and I never recovered from the economic depression that began in 1929.
Some of my uncles were among those who directly fought on the front lines in WW2. I've read what some veterans have written, and I heard my uncles describe how and why for them, surviving poverty was more difficult and painful than what they saw and experienced in the war. Respectfully, Supposn
This is not a disagreement about the undesirability of depressions, wars, pandemics etc etc etc.
