3 ms·
Here is a proper explanation if you're genuinely curious and not seeking to advance a position out of convenience or bias. http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafi
by rrggrr 10y ago
Here is a proper explanation if you're genuinely curious and not seeking to advance a position out of convenience or bias.
http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/60358 http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/60358
- snrplfth 10y agoI've read it, and it seems to be the same kind of mercantilist thinking that I'm criticizing. It's more of this "take an accounting identity, ignore the effects of one-half of it, bemoan the 'imbalance' of the other half." I mean, you could solve the US 'trade imbalance' by making it extremely hard for foreigners to invest capital in the US. But of course this would have knock-on effects that make it harder for companies and workers in the US to access investment capital. Or you could shut out foreign goods - and ignore the costs of more expensive domestic goods for US consumers. None of this actually benefits people. I see nothing in this article to distinguish it from the historically-always-wrong mercantilism that just kept drawing boundaries around areas and then yelled and shouted whenever more of one particular class of good went in than came out.
- rrggrr 10y agoI give you credit for reading it. Disagree with you utterly, but impressed by your conviction as wrong as it is :-)