The article I read was about the specifics of what a trade deficit really means and what you can't assume with only the knowledge of the dollar amount it. The article uses examples like we used in Econ 110 to explain what is happening when we say we have a trade deficit. It explains that even though trade may not balance, trade still helps both nations involved. It also recognizes that if a nation wants to keep its trade surplus, it must invest the excess money they make into foreign nations to avoid increasing their exchange rates.
The article suggests that rather than looking at what our trade balance is, we need to look at how we invest the money that comes back into our economy. If we invest the inflow of money poorly, our trade deficit will be ineffective in building our economy. Also, with the US, and the dollar, being the center for global finance, Economic theory dictates that the US must run a trade deficit to prevent international economic freezes.
Economic issues can be much more complex than political rhetoric allows for and I wish more candidates would understand basic economic theory before creating arguments that stem from faulty assumptions.
Link to Article
I wish politicians knew about the economy too. The thing is, most of the people the candidates are talking to don't fully understand the economy either. The blind leading the blind. Even if a politician understands the economy (because there are plenty that do to a good degree), they have to simplify it to the general public for it to make any sense. It is a funny world we live in.
ReplyDelete