4 ms·

Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. Amer

Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. America is consuming too much, and the world is saving too much. So yes, your living standards do need to go down for the sake of the greater global macroeconomic stability. Contrary to what xkcd or NYT might tell you, actual economic institutions like the IMF and the World Bank are coigzant of the issues caused by the status quo and largely view the Trumpian diagnosis, if not the horrid execution, as correct.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
> Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. No central bankers in the world ever said that including Powell. That’s Trump policy and Trump only.
- corimaith 1y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft-text-warns-of-excessive-imbalances-in-global-economy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft... https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050... They have actually, the debate about persistent imbalances have been going on since the 2000s and Bessnet's arguments are simply the extension of Bernanke's prior hypotheses and ultimately Keynes diagnosis on global macroeconomics stability.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    Neither articles are implying that. The first one throws an intentionally vague imbalance and aims squarely at Chine state aids distortion. It also goes at length about how tariffs are seen as terrible by everyone and how it’s all about a level playing field and not about rebalancing trade balances. The second is strictly about the US and explains that trade inbalance has more to do with capital flows that actual trade of goods and how the extreme situation in the US might need moderation. Its conclusion is that the trade balance will fix itself if the US both fixes its budget issues and help foreign countries to actually use their excess savings locally. That’s pretty far from thinking the balance of trade needs to be rebalanced.
    - corimaith 1y ago
      >The first one throws an intentionally vague imbalance and aims squarely at Chine state aids distortion. It also goes at length about how tariffs are seen as terrible by everyone and how it’s all about a level playing field and not about rebalancing trade balances. They are all talking about the same thing. The large imbalances in trade are precisely due to the distortionary domestic policies that surplus nations bring, of which China is commonly perceived as the biggest violator. A world without any protectionist policies is one where trade balances are temporary or close to 0 due to FX effects. >The second is strictly about the US and explains that trade inbalance has more to do with capital flows that actual trade of goods and how the extreme situation in the US might need moderation. You clearly then need to review your definitions because we are talking about the same concepts here. Current Account + Financial & Capital Account = 0. The capital flows are the direct inverse of the current account and flow of trade. In the same way, Current Account = Savings - Investment. When he talks about using excess savings locally, that is precisely about moving savings into consumtpion and thus reducing trade surpluses. That is very much what economists or Bessnet are still saying today in reducing excessive surpluses in turn and thus trade imbalances. Clearly after 20 years, trade imbalances aren't self-balancing like FX effects would imply, due to very explicit policies pursed by said surplus nations in doubling down on manufacturing rather than increasing consumption. Mind you, the greater implication of what Bernanke was suggesting is that the excess savings and associated large capital inflows (and thus deficit) is what fueled the housing bubble and credit expansion in the 2000s that led to the GFC. The greater argument being that these distortionary policies that being pursued domestically in surplus countries over manufacturing is leading to an associated distortion in the US economy towards overfinancialization.
      - jaybrendansmith 1y ago
        So it's up to the USA to take a hit and fix the balance? I call BS on that. Seems extremely dumb, just like everything else I've seen coming out of the current admin. Biggest self own I've ever seen.
        AnimalMuppet 1y ago
munksbeer 1y ago
> the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade The US sells billions of dollars of digital services to the rest of the world each year. Did Trump and co include netflix, aws, azure, etc etc in their "unbalanced trade"?
- corimaith 1y ago
  The Current Account Deficit includes goods and services.
  - lossolo 1y ago
    EU-US goods and services trade is balanced: the difference between EU exports to the US and US exports to the EU stood at €48 billion in 2023; the equivalent of just 3% of the total trade between the EU and the US. Total bilateral trade in goods between the EU and the US reached €851 billion in 2023. The EU exported €503 billion of goods to the US market, while importing €347 billion; this resulted in a goods trade surplus of €157 billion for the EU. Total bilateral trade in services between the EU and the US was worth €746 billion in 2023. The EU exported €319 billion of services to the US, while importing €427 billion from the US; this resulted in a services trade deficit of €109 billion for the EU. source: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/united-states_en https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
    - corimaith 1y ago
      So they are running a deficit; Nonetheless, bilateral balances don't tell much without understanding the larger context of the total balances of each country and how proportionate they are relative to the global sum. The matter of fact is that nearly every major economy is running a surplus, it is really on the USA and some countries like UK that is holding up the deficit side. Whether you think this arrangement is good or not is a matter of debate, but many economists would agree it's not good or sustainable, nor should it be occurring in the first place. Surplus countries should have strengthening currencies, deficit countries weakening ones under natural conditions. This is not happening due to very specific policies that surplus nations have imposed, at the burden of deficit nations.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

> Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. No central bankers in the world ever said that including Powell. That’s Trump policy and Trump only.

corimaith 1y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft-text-warns-of-excessive-imbalances-in-global-economy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft... https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050... They have actually, the debate about persistent imbalances have been going on since the 2000s and Bessnet's arguments are simply the extension of Bernanke's prior hypotheses and ultimately Keynes diagnosis on global macroeconomics stability.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Neither articles are implying that. The first one throws an intentionally vague imbalance and aims squarely at Chine state aids distortion. It also goes at length about how tariffs are seen as terrible by everyone and how it’s all about a level playing field and not about rebalancing trade balances. The second is strictly about the US and explains that trade inbalance has more to do with capital flows that actual trade of goods and how the extreme situation in the US might need moderation. Its conclusion is that the trade balance will fix itself if the US both fixes its budget issues and help foreign countries to actually use their excess savings locally. That’s pretty far from thinking the balance of trade needs to be rebalanced.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    >The first one throws an intentionally vague imbalance and aims squarely at Chine state aids distortion. It also goes at length about how tariffs are seen as terrible by everyone and how it’s all about a level playing field and not about rebalancing trade balances. They are all talking about the same thing. The large imbalances in trade are precisely due to the distortionary domestic policies that surplus nations bring, of which China is commonly perceived as the biggest violator. A world without any protectionist policies is one where trade balances are temporary or close to 0 due to FX effects. >The second is strictly about the US and explains that trade inbalance has more to do with capital flows that actual trade of goods and how the extreme situation in the US might need moderation. You clearly then need to review your definitions because we are talking about the same concepts here. Current Account + Financial & Capital Account = 0. The capital flows are the direct inverse of the current account and flow of trade. In the same way, Current Account = Savings - Investment. When he talks about using excess savings locally, that is precisely about moving savings into consumtpion and thus reducing trade surpluses. That is very much what economists or Bessnet are still saying today in reducing excessive surpluses in turn and thus trade imbalances. Clearly after 20 years, trade imbalances aren't self-balancing like FX effects would imply, due to very explicit policies pursed by said surplus nations in doubling down on manufacturing rather than increasing consumption. Mind you, the greater implication of what Bernanke was suggesting is that the excess savings and associated large capital inflows (and thus deficit) is what fueled the housing bubble and credit expansion in the 2000s that led to the GFC. The greater argument being that these distortionary policies that being pursued domestically in surplus countries over manufacturing is leading to an associated distortion in the US economy towards overfinancialization.
    - jaybrendansmith 1y ago
      So it's up to the USA to take a hit and fix the balance? I call BS on that. Seems extremely dumb, just like everything else I've seen coming out of the current admin. Biggest self own I've ever seen.
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago

munksbeer 1y ago

> the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade The US sells billions of dollars of digital services to the rest of the world each year. Did Trump and co include netflix, aws, azure, etc etc in their "unbalanced trade"?

corimaith 1y ago
The Current Account Deficit includes goods and services.
- lossolo 1y ago
  EU-US goods and services trade is balanced: the difference between EU exports to the US and US exports to the EU stood at €48 billion in 2023; the equivalent of just 3% of the total trade between the EU and the US. Total bilateral trade in goods between the EU and the US reached €851 billion in 2023. The EU exported €503 billion of goods to the US market, while importing €347 billion; this resulted in a goods trade surplus of €157 billion for the EU. Total bilateral trade in services between the EU and the US was worth €746 billion in 2023. The EU exported €319 billion of services to the US, while importing €427 billion from the US; this resulted in a services trade deficit of €109 billion for the EU. source: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/united-states_en https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
  - corimaith 1y ago
    So they are running a deficit; Nonetheless, bilateral balances don't tell much without understanding the larger context of the total balances of each country and how proportionate they are relative to the global sum. The matter of fact is that nearly every major economy is running a surplus, it is really on the USA and some countries like UK that is holding up the deficit side. Whether you think this arrangement is good or not is a matter of debate, but many economists would agree it's not good or sustainable, nor should it be occurring in the first place. Surplus countries should have strengthening currencies, deficit countries weakening ones under natural conditions. This is not happening due to very specific policies that surplus nations have imposed, at the burden of deficit nations.