4 ms·

I suppose you could look at it in the classical economic sense. I give you $1 because I value it less than a cheeseburger. You give me a cheeseburger because

I suppose you could look at it in the classical economic sense. I give you $1 because I value it less than a cheeseburger. You give me a cheeseburger because you value it less than a $1. I don't think that means things even out between US and China. But I do think it means things even out overall. We may "lose" with China and "win" with others. But ultimately, as long as people are spending their own money (as they want to spend it) I can't see how a trade deficit/surplus will ever affect them.

Spooky23 9y ago
The US model right now is is exporting cash and hard assets in exchange for mostly consumable goods. It's a pretty obvious bad idea. It's ok in the sense that it isn't a moral hazard. But it's bad in that we're exporting our wealth and hollowing out the country.
- MR4D 9y ago
  I question the comment about not being a moral hazard. It's almost like a free-rider problem, but shifted in time instead of person. Not saying you're wrong, just questioning it's assumption in economics.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    It's a good point. Economics as practiced today is very "transactional" vs looking at the long term. It's pretty obvious that we've morphed into a poorer country over the last 30 years. We've also shifted our thinking about prosperity from employment to GDP. Also there's no concept of nationalism in modern economics, and many advocates for the current way of doing stuff inject revisionist social agendas to the mix. (I.e. Why should Westerners be privileged?)
nickpsecurity 9y ago
" But ultimately, as long as people are spending their own money (as they want to spend it) I can't see how a trade deficit/surplus will ever affect them." Long-term, risk avoidance is a weakness in people. They'd be spending it thinking of one result with another, worse one on the way. That's a way it might happen.

Spooky23 9y ago

The US model right now is is exporting cash and hard assets in exchange for mostly consumable goods. It's a pretty obvious bad idea. It's ok in the sense that it isn't a moral hazard. But it's bad in that we're exporting our wealth and hollowing out the country.

MR4D 9y ago
I question the comment about not being a moral hazard. It's almost like a free-rider problem, but shifted in time instead of person. Not saying you're wrong, just questioning it's assumption in economics.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  It's a good point. Economics as practiced today is very "transactional" vs looking at the long term. It's pretty obvious that we've morphed into a poorer country over the last 30 years. We've also shifted our thinking about prosperity from employment to GDP. Also there's no concept of nationalism in modern economics, and many advocates for the current way of doing stuff inject revisionist social agendas to the mix. (I.e. Why should Westerners be privileged?)

nickpsecurity 9y ago

" But ultimately, as long as people are spending their own money (as they want to spend it) I can't see how a trade deficit/surplus will ever affect them." Long-term, risk avoidance is a weakness in people. They'd be spending it thinking of one result with another, worse one on the way. That's a way it might happen.