by Summary:
In MMT terms, imports are a real gain and exports are real loss, where "real" means "stuff" in the sense of resources used in production including and the labor that gets embedded. TThe importing country is getting commodities that the members of society in the exporting country are not able to enjoy in spite of having produced them, while the members of society of the importing country are enjoying those commodities instead of the actual producers. So, from a real point of view rather than a financial one, importers are getting a better deal in exchanging currency for actual goods — almost. Imports mean that the importer is receiving embedded labor as part of the deal which may affect employment in the importing country negatively Exporting has the opposite effect on labor by creating
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
In MMT terms, imports are a real gain and exports are real loss, where "real" means "stuff" in the sense of resources used in production including and the labor that gets embedded. TIn MMT terms, imports are a real gain and exports are real loss, where "real" means "stuff" in the sense of resources used in production including and the labor that gets embedded. TThe importing country is getting commodities that the members of society in the exporting country are not able to enjoy in spite of having produced them, while the members of society of the importing country are enjoying those commodities instead of the actual producers. So, from a real point of view rather than a financial one, importers are getting a better deal in exchanging currency for actual goods — almost. Imports mean that the importer is receiving embedded labor as part of the deal which may affect employment in the importing country negatively Exporting has the opposite effect on labor by creating
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Dean Baker writes Health insurance killing: Economics does have something to say
NewDealdemocrat writes Retail Real Sales
Angry Bear writes Planned Tariffs, An Economy Argument with Political Implications
Joel Eissenberg writes Will DOGE be an exercise in futility?
The importing country is getting commodities that the members of society in the exporting country are not able to enjoy in spite of having produced them, while the members of society of the importing country are enjoying those commodities instead of the actual producers.
The Lens
Trade Isn't Money for Nothing
Stephanie Kelton | Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Stony Brook University, formerly Democrats' chief economist on the staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and an economic adviser to the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders
So, from a real point of view rather than a financial one, importers are getting a better deal in exchanging currency for actual goods — almost. Imports mean that the importer is receiving embedded labor as part of the deal which may affect employment in the importing country negatively Exporting has the opposite effect on labor by creating jobs. But these jobs are producing goods for others rather than the producer country.
Focusing on the financial aspect of the exchange obscures this. The Trump team seems to be overly focused on the financial aspect of international transactions.
On the other hand, unlike the US which is a net importer, China is a net exporter. The reason is that China's domestic demand is insufficient to absorb its productive potential resulting from it policy toward primary investment in productive capital.
The export market serves to provide employment where the domestic market is lacking in demand to do so. Addressing this is is a current topic in China now, and the leadership is working on policy planning to reverse this condition by increasing domestic demand and thereby domestic consumption as a percentage of the economy. The goal is to do this without increasing moral hazard resulting from "easy money" and "hand outs" in form of "helicopter money."
Leaving out a lot of detail, China is a large and diverse country, so increasing demand domestically across the board in an equitable fashion is challenging. The conclusion is that this eludes central planning and policy that acts directly. The currency planning debate is focused on doing increasing domestic demand regionally and locally to take diversity and equity into account in a socialistic environment., e.g, without overly increasing inequality. China wants to avoid what has been happening in the West, with the top of the town profiting inordinately from policy.
The Lens
Trade Isn't Money for Nothing
Stephanie Kelton | Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Stony Brook University, formerly Democrats' chief economist on the staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and an economic adviser to the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders