US trade delegate Jamieson Greer has called on American companies to report unfair trade practices by partner countries, according Budliger Artieda. This applies in particular to G20 countries and states with a strongly positive trade balance with the US.
You would not expect an efficient world market to have a zero bilateral trade balance between each pair of countries in it.
Say we have a world with three countries.
Country A is good at producing apples and consumes a lot of beans.
Country B is good at producing beans and consumes a lot of cherries.
Country C is good at producing cherries and consumes a lot of apples.
No country on there should have a zero bilateral trade balance with any other country. Country A should run a deficit with B and surplus with C. B should run a deficit with C and surplus with A. C should run a deficit with A and surplus with B.
You could, with sufficient regulation, prevent that from happening, but you’d be giving up the gains you get from comparative advantage.
I mean A could sell apples and buy cherries from C and then sell the cherries to B and buy their beans. That would make a zero sum with both countries. Sure it results in the same end result but with more shiping cost.
I think the problem is that many people don’t understand, that a deficit in trade is nothing negative, you are not losing money as a country because you are still getting products.
Nobody complains, that we (as people) have a trade deficit with supermarkets, why don’t they employ us at least for the money we pay in groceries!?
It is actually even more stupid. If Country A invests into Country B, then Country A has a trade surplus with Country B. However it also owns the investments, which means profits from the investment in Country B should be send back to Country A.
That is exactly what happened with the US. They invest a lot abroad after WW2 and are now living of the capital they own abroad.
You would not expect an efficient world market to have a zero bilateral trade balance between each pair of countries in it.
Say we have a world with three countries.
Country A is good at producing apples and consumes a lot of beans.
Country B is good at producing beans and consumes a lot of cherries.
Country C is good at producing cherries and consumes a lot of apples.
No country on there should have a zero bilateral trade balance with any other country. Country A should run a deficit with B and surplus with C. B should run a deficit with C and surplus with A. C should run a deficit with A and surplus with B.
You could, with sufficient regulation, prevent that from happening, but you’d be giving up the gains you get from comparative advantage.
I mean A could sell apples and buy cherries from C and then sell the cherries to B and buy their beans. That would make a zero sum with both countries. Sure it results in the same end result but with more shiping cost. I think the problem is that many people don’t understand, that a deficit in trade is nothing negative, you are not losing money as a country because you are still getting products.
Nobody complains, that we (as people) have a trade deficit with supermarkets, why don’t they employ us at least for the money we pay in groceries!?
It is actually even more stupid. If Country A invests into Country B, then Country A has a trade surplus with Country B. However it also owns the investments, which means profits from the investment in Country B should be send back to Country A.
That is exactly what happened with the US. They invest a lot abroad after WW2 and are now living of the capital they own abroad.