And there we go, people actually using “trade imbalance” as a valid economical concept. If you let clown dictate your vocabulary, you’ll be spitting confettis in no time. Please be smarter than this.

There is no such thing as trade imbalance, it’s called trade, if you have more money, you buy more.

▲

herbst 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's not only funny as f but also scary and sad to see people who could be smarter than this falling for orange man and his words and actually dare to repeat them internationally, not only confusing everyone that doesn't know about Americas misleaded ideas but also enforcing the idea that any of this makes any sense anywhere else than in orange mans head.

▲

blauditore 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, more money flows in one direction in such cases, which might or might not be intended. As long as there's enough influx of money from other places, this can even be long-term sustainable (e.g. a triangle of trade).

It seems that China is currently a "sink" in the global flow of money, which will obviously change the landscape in the long run. How? Hard to tell, probably not in such a bad as many people fear. I think it will eventually drive up prices of Chinese export goods, which will force importers to look for alternatives, which is likely better in many regards than having one country manufacturing everything for everyone in the world. But don't trust me, I'm just a random poster on the internet.

	▲	khalic 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		The issue is the framing itself, calling it an imbalance or deficit, when it’s way more complicated than this. It’s a really good strategy to frame the issue in your advantage. Doesn’t make it useful or meaningful

▲

stogot 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some export more. Some import more. Some want to be the opposite. If you’re in that position, you’d consider yourself out of balance

	▲	khalic 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You have to consider so many other aspects, like the size of the economy itself, number of habitants, etc. It’s definitely a dishonest tactic

▲

throwawayqqq11 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There is no such thing as trade imbalance

Well, hope i can educate you with some marx here ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_exchange

Marx theory of equivalence of exchange is the foundation with which he defines exploitation. With a universal comparison unit (value of labor), you can define unbalanced trades.

Dont ask me though, how a balanced trade would look like. Maybe we can only approximate it via outcome.

▲

Rodmine 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Simple ideas work to get simpletons onboard, and one needs their vote and support to do anything. You are criticizing the greatest political communicator that has existed in history and will be studied and tried to be replicated for a long time to come.

	▲	khalic 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sounds a little hyperbole, I would argue it’s more a political strategy based on very smart use of technology, some brilliant strategists that know their base (I hate Banon but the man knows his stuff) and a mummified Democratic Party. Hitler, to cite one, was so much better communicator than trump, without the brain farts