To be fair the more common phrase was "reciprocal trade". The main goal was to lower other countries' tariffs by aggressive negotiation. As you might say it is a risky option.
because savings are capital supply. companies brrow from saving pool to invest. so if savings increase, capital supply as a whole increace and shifting out.
How do you see, or explain when due localism (consumers choosing "local for local" produce in supermarkets, specially in Northern Europe) specialization due comparative advantages is set aside?
The opportunity cost of the local people producing for the local is high compared to that of the people elsewhere. Cuz there has to be people who have been producing the same shit and specialised in that. The problem with local for local is there is a trade-off. There will be increase in number of jobs but the cost of the good is higher cuz the opportunity cost of them is high(they could be producing something else at the same time ) and hence they are not exploiting their comparative advantage
It's pretty easy for professors to argue that international trade is good in the aggregate when their jobs aren't threatened by international competition at lower wages
Wait a minute... Guess this lecture was in 90s and this video was upload recently. LOLOLOLLL Because, it's no more 3-5% p.a in the US and 16% in Japan. Now Japan IR is - 1.18% p.a. updated on April, 2022. Me still listen the whole lecture to get the picture of WHAT'S GOING ON by J. Powell's succeeding jack- up the IR on and on by the current spreadsheet analysis.
Total misunderstanding of how economy actually works. When you borrow money to the bank, this money is not taken from savings of other people. It is created out of the blue, then destroyed when you reimburse.
