Talk:Balance of trade/Archives/2021

American vs universal opinion

There has been a recent edit warring on this page (beginning with this edit) regarding the statement:

The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected by trade experts and economists.

An editor (Shharp prefers the wording

The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected by American trade experts and American economists.

noting that this idea may be unique to American experts and not universally held. The cited source does not identify the opinion and a peculiarly American idea, as pointed out by Snooganssnoogans in this edit summary, although the author and publisher of the source are both Americans.

I would recommend to Shharp that if they wish to have their preferred wording, they must provide a reliable source showing that opinions of experts in other countries differ from those of US authors.

I invite and urge both Shharp and Snooganssnoogans to join this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a survey of leading economists (at least one quarter are non-Americans) where they take a position on whether "a typical country" can boost citizens' welfare by reducing trade deficits[1]: they overwhelmingly disagree that reducing trade deficits has to be good. The text that the editor has been adding is about specific cases of trade deficits and about some of the harms that trade deficits can cause. It's akin to wanting to try to dispute "Economists do not believe that trade harms the average citizen's welfare" with this or that economist disputing a specific trade agreement or this or that economist pointing out some of the harms that trade can cause. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources presented don't show consensus among economists on the effects of the trade deficit on the economy. the sentence "The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected by trade experts and economists, is therefore completely false.

The IMF writes exactly that trade deficit can be harmful

A survey of economists with at "least one quarter are non-Americans", is not enough to say that there is a consensus in the world.

Shharp (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Shharp

References

Shharp, the IMF source you cite states that trade imbalances can be harmful if they lead to balance of payment problems that then lead to foreign exchange shortages. However, the sentence in question states that "the notion that trade imbalances are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected." So your source is not talking about trade balances themselves, but rather trade balances that lead to balance of payment problems. Not being an economist, I don't know that the two are always related, but your source says that the one can lead to the other (i.e. that it is not always the case), so the trade deficit per se is not the bad thing, but rather the possible (but not inevitable) consequence of the trade deficit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I presented the analyses of Stiglitz and Bernanke(among the most renowned American economists) who believe that trade deficits are harmful.

And a country such as China considers the trade balance as an important factor: it pursues a mercantilist economic policy (based on trade surpluses). Chinese economists have clearly a different view of economics.

And Russia is pursuing a policy based on protectionism (according to which international trade is not a "win-win" game but a zero-sum game: surplus countries get richer at the expense of deficit countries)

Shharp (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Again, not being an economist, but a layman, I would argue that Stiglitz' and Bernanke's arguments are unique to the Eurozone, meaning that "trade imbalance in itself is not a problem", but when coupled with an inflexible common currency, can lead to problems. So those examples may not be relevant to the point at hand, although they are definitely valid points to bring up elsewhere in the article. The other points you've made here, about China and Russia, do seem pertinent. I would argue then that the sentence in question could be reworded as:

The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is rejected by some trade experts and economists.

The points about specific cases should not be handled in the lead, but rather in a separate section dedicated to that point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The Russian and Chinese governments are not trade experts and economists. Governments frequently do not adopt policies that are consistent with those that economists favor. The editor even admits as much when he cites mercantilism (!) as a legit economic policy, even though it's been universally recognized as bunk by economists for more than a hundred years. To conflate government policies with academic consensus is not wise. Should we alter the description on relevant Wikipedia pages of climate change as a consensus on among climate scientists because the current government in the US rejects that climate change is a thing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that the Chinese and Russian governments don't adopt policies that are consistent with those of their economists? China has been conducting this surplus policy for several decades. So you assume that the Chinese and Russian leaders are stupid, don't listen to their own economic experts, don't know what they're doing, and are necessarily less competent than American leaders?

Shharp (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Countries of all types enact policies that go against expert consensuses. There are plenty of policies that Western leaders enact that run contrary to what economists advise them to do. This talk is WP:SYNTH in the extreme and getting extremely annoying. I have shown and sourced without any shadow of a doubt that economists overwhelmingly reject that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves, yet I now have debate whether governments are stupid and all kinds of irrelevant nonsense with someone who thinks mercantilism is a perfectly legit policy in economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

With a minimum of modesty, we can only acknowledge that there are major differences in economic doctrines between countries. Moreover, given the current economic and political situation in the United States, I am not sure that their economic politics can be considered as models in the world. Shharp (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What economic policies countries choose has absolutely nothing to do with the text that's being considered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Stiglitz writes about Keynesian theory about trade imbalances in general (and not just about an inflexic currency)

Bernanke explains the origin of the trade deficits by citing the undervaluation of the German currency against other eurozone countries. But he clearly explains the role of deficits in the crisis: "The fact that Germany is selling so much more than it is buying redirects demand from its neighbors (as well as from other countries around the world), reducing output and employment outside Germany"

Moreover, the United States has the same problem with other currencies, which explains its trade deficit. : https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/11/china-devalues-yuan-against-us-dollar-explainer http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072115/how-undervalued-yuan.asp https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/trump-does-have-a-point-the-japanese-yen-is-undervalued-strategist.html

Shharp (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The economic model followed by Russia and China (as well as South Korea, Taiwan,...)http://www.fes.de/ipg/IPG2_2005/ROBERTWADE.PDF is not a pure invention.

It is simply the model followed by... the United States between the 18th century and 1945 (the model inspired by Alexander Hamilton, author of the text "Report on Manufactures" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures) and between 1945 and 1971 (the Bretton Woods Agreement) that enabled the United States to control its deficit. Shharp (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the sentence :"The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is rejected by some trade experts and economists." but Stiglitz and Bernanke's analysis and information on other countries should be cited. Shharp (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to debate but unfortunately, Snooganssnoogans does not want consensus despite the sources provided and despite WikiDan61's opinion on the sentence "The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is rejected by some trade experts and economists." Shharp (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I point out that this page doesn't belong to Snooganssnoogans, and that he's obliged to take into account the opinion of other publishers. Shharp (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Shharp, please don't continue to re-insert challenged text like this. Several of your changes are at odds with the source, and some are plainly nonsensical (e.g., this edit, which inserts the following oxymoronic text: "The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by some trade experts and economists." Clearly, if something is "overwhelmingly rejected," that view is held by more thanb "some"). Neutrality^talk 18:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I proposed the terms "American economists" or "economists of the United States", which I thought were more realistic; but this was also rejected by Snooganssnoogans Shharp (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That's because the sources don't say this at all. Come back with a source that directly supports what you wish to say. Then you'll get a better response. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The economic doctrine applied by these countries is totally contrary to the United States. Where's the consensus? there is no global consensus in the world

Shharp (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing individual countries' trade policies with the professional consensus of economists. The two are not the same, as Snoogs tried to explain to you before. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Economics is not an exact science like Mathematics but a human or social science. Even economists say that

Shharp (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There are major ideological divergences between economists: those who follow the doctrine of hayek, keynes, neoclassical theory,...

Shharp (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

As the sources show, there are things that economists overwhelmingly agree on. Balance of trade is one of them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

None of your sources show consensus at the global level .They only show polls at American universities.

I appreciate the balance in perspective and viewpoint presentation in the article when it comes to the Keynes and Monetarist theories.Azizalshalfan (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Shharp (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)