Into the vacants.
1 Like
I actually meant non representative government. I went back and edit my post.
Thus some of reasons you posted.
1 Like
I got your drift.
1 Like
Why? Couldn’t it just be indicative of natural resources and production specialties?
If country A has great grape country and sells wine to country B, who makes great computer chips and this relationship continues for decades…so what that country A sells TONS of win to B and B sells a few chips a year to A based on demand?
How is that relationship unhealthy?
Keep in mind there is a whole alphabet of countries out there and A and B also trade with C,D,E…etc…
Picture some backwards country in say 1900 or 1920.
(Mexico in 1920, China in 1920.)
The US was a maunfacturing powerhouse, those countries could not even make steel on an industrial level, -AND- the US was and agriculture powerhouse ( 
amber waves of grain. ). -AND- we had one of the best education systems in the world.
It makes perfect sense that such countries would have a persistant decades-long even century-long trade deficit.
- They lacked technology and infrastructure (railorads, steel mills)
- they had too few natural resources (arable land) and
- their education systems were a half century or more behind the curve.
That is the “base case” for prolonged multidecade trade imbalances.
When a country is so inefficent it sucks at making everytihng, is a bad investment for everyting etc. that is usually a bad sign.
The trade balance is not what kills ya. Neither is the lump.
Those are just symptoms.
1 Like
We have stacks of old threads with these Kid Sniffer (D)rones insisting that the skies were falling the whole time under Trump (none ever came true), and then stacks of threads with how many boots they could slurp when we had an actual recession under Biden.
They never do. 
2 Likes
You’re not answering my main question.
If a country just doesn’t have the resources another has, but has other items for trade with lower or higher valuations, imbalances are going to happen, and I just don’t see how that can be seen as a symptom.
Other countries re industrialized but small. Of course they will buy more than they sell for that simple fact. Doesn’t mean they are unhealthy.
You’re going to have that, either way said country makes up that imbalance through other countries on back side of trading.
Right now…we have trillion dollars of trade imbalance globally. Not a good sign IMO.
1 Like
It is true that if we twist our heads in knots long enough we might come up with some other scenario than what I have described.
Nonetheless I believe I have adequately and properly described the “base case,” (the “null hypothesis.”)
The burden of proof therefore relies upon other to say not only “If I twist my head into knots I can imagine a scenario where that does not apply,” but to also provide evidence that it applies here and now.
POP QUIZ in the 1950s who had the stronger economy?
a.) Africa
b.) India
c.) The US and the EU.
Who had the better balance of trade?
.
.
.
As for resources
- Luxemboug lacks resources.
- Japan lack resources.
- The EU does not have a lot of land per person nor a lot of coal mines, iron mines etc… (comparative lack of resources)
- Lots of countries lack resources. (Taiwan, Korea, most of the EU)
Yet all of those countries have postive balances of trade.
The lesson: Lack of resources do not cause a chronic trade deficit, but history shows weak economies do. If you wish to suggest that our chronic trade deficit is caused by somethng other than a weak economy the burdernof proof is on you.
1 Like
And now it will fall even faster.
1 Like
Consider for example, David Ricardo’s orignal example.
-
It makes the (ceteris paribus) assumptions that both economies are m/l free-market economies and that neither of the “cheat.”
-
It shows us that England should NOT attempt to favor its wine industry, even though that’s “nicer” and provides good-paying jobs etc… England will be worse-off it tries to do that.
-
It ALSO does not say “England will be better off even if it makes very litte of either product and sustains itself by trading a series of IOUs in exchange for both linen and wine.”
Luxembough
Luxembourg Trade Balance [Up-to-date Chart & Data] | 1988 - 2025 | CEIC Data.
Japan
Japan's trade deficit shrinks 44% in 2024 on record exports.
Japan’s trade deficit in 2024 shrank 44 percent from a year earlier to 5.33 trillion yen ($34 billion), as exports hit a record high due to robust vehicle and semiconductor-related demand, government data showed Thursday.
While exports rose for the fourth straight year, Japan’s trade balance also remained in the red for the fourth consecutive year, as elevated energy prices in recent years increased import costs for resource-scarce Japan.
Korea
https://www.statista.com/statistics/939686/trade-balance-of-south-korea/
Thought they have surpluses in the past.
But I can understand your point if you are talking about AGGREGATE trade deficit. But weren’t we talking about individual trade deficits? Maybe we were talking past each other on that.
I don’t think it does make that assumption. Even when one side is intervening in the market, both sides can be better off. We are better off today because we started trading with China in earnest 40+ years ago. China is better off today because they started trading with the US.
Both sides - though almost exclusively China, of course - have thrown up all sorts of barriers to trade, rules to try to control markets etc…
But still, despite those both countries are better off (and less likely to hurl missiles at each other)_
By this example many of the most successful economies on the planet would be considered sick, while a wide range of middling to poor country in the world would be healthy.
I don’t think that’s right. I think mainly wealthy countries with a stable currency run trade deficits because they are able to send little sheets of printed paper to poorer countries in exchange for actual, useful, valuable product.
And those poor countries are happy to take the little pieces of paper!
From the list below choose the countries that were “wealthy countries with a stable currency” (your word)
in the 1950s, and 1920s and 1890s
- The US and Canada
- Most countries in Western Europe
- Impoverished African Countries
- Impoverished Asian Coutnries.
Of course the answer is obvious.
From this we can see the following:
- Throughout history, when given a choice, countries have chosen NOT to run consistent long-term trade deficits.
- Throughout history, people when given a choice, people have consistently chosen NOT to be punched in the nose.
- The only countries that consistently run trade deficits are thecountries powerless to stop it
- The only people who consistently have been punched in the nose are people who were powerless to stop it.
You can not use those time periods because during those time periods because those periods involved us trading gold - a very finite resources - in exchange for goods and services.
We no longer do that. Under a fiat currency regime and as a sovereign currency issuer we send little pieces of paper instead. Much cheaper and far more plentiful… and how we’ve managed to run a “Trade deficit” for decades on end without running out of gold.
The US, when given a choice, has consistently chosen to run a trade deficit pretty much ever since we ended Bretton Woods. We could stop it if we wanted to cause economic pain but that would be pointless.
And now we are trading IOUs.
“I want a lot of stuff now. I’ll pay ya for it later”
You are right that woudl be very painful to stop.
Credit addicitons are like that.
Lemme ask you this.
Which staement more closley captures John Maynard Keynes think about demand for goods and services?
a.) We don’t care about demand. Demand is lousy When demand is low that is good. If there is no demand for the goods and services in your economy just exchange IOUs and live high on the hog.
or
b.) Demand is a good thing. It is a sign of a healthy economy. In fact it can sometimes be used judiciusly as a tool to improve an economy.
-Pick one- (wink)
Absolutely no different than issuing little pieces of paper to Visa or Mastercard in exchange for “stuff now.” NOT a sign of a strong economy.
They are not IOU’s. They are currency. Pieces of paper either held or traded for other things. And we printed them.
1 Like
Do you think Visa would accept little pieces of paper you printed?
You know why they accept the ones the US prints?
You know why China and Canada and Mexico accept them?
Strength. Economic strength. Not weakness - quite the opposite in fact. You know why the US doesn’t accept rubles? Weakness. Russian weakness.
