It’s trite but true that language matters and can mislead. Nowhere in economic policy is this more evident than in trade.Language matters. Words have not only technical meanings; they also summon particular attitudes and impressions. And sometimes these attitudes and impressions differ significantly from the words’ technical meanings.In no domain of economic policy is the confusion created by the divergence of words’ technical meanings from the attitudes and impressions conveyed by those words greater than in the domain of trade policy.
- Trade Deficit
- Concessions
- Dumping
- ‘Made in’ Labels
- Americans Trade With
pull down to refresh
related posts
111 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 16 Dec
“Trade deficit” is particularly misleading because it means you’re receiving more stuff than you’re sending.
reply
69 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 16 Dec
Right, but stopping the analysis there also leads to a simplistic understanding, which is where I think a lot of the mainstream business world has landed. Mankiw's section on trade in his principles textbook is a particularly enlightening glimpse into the mindset of the average businessperson, because it's the most popular econ textbook in the country and there's an odds-on chance that 1 in 2 people in business learned their econ from it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 16 Dec
If people are actually thinking about what’s going on, it doesn’t matter much what terms they use.
reply
69 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 16 Dec
Yeah, even today I still have to think twice when I hear that term. I also liked the explanation about dumping!
reply
44 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 16 Dec
Yeah, that’s another ridiculous one.
reply