tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post5624490799236785334..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: Another dim-witted criticism of Peter NavarroThe Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-26733105994091332532017-05-07T16:38:15.066-04:002017-05-07T16:38:15.066-04:00At Economics Help, in an article on the causes of ...At <a href="http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/cause-recession2/" rel="nofollow">Economics Help</a>, in an article on the causes of recessions, Tejvan Pettinger writes:<br /><br />"<b>AD [Aggregate Demand] is composed of C+I+G+X-M, therefore a fall in any of these components could cause a recession</b>."<br /><br />Item #3 above opens with this quote from the BusinessInsider article:<br /><br />"Navarro's article opens with an incomplete premise, that US GDP growth comes from 'only four factors: consumption, government spending, business investment and net exports (the difference between exports and imports).'"<br /><br />It is the same as Pettinger said.<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with saying it that way.<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-52730396736027378492017-03-16T04:24:21.215-04:002017-03-16T04:24:21.215-04:00At Cato, Daniel J. Ikenson in Peter Navarro, Harva...At Cato, Daniel J. Ikenson in <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/peter-navarro-harvard-phd-economist-trade-warrior" rel="nofollow">Peter Navarro, Harvard Ph.D. Economist, Trade Warrior</a> attacks Navarro on the Y=C+I+G+NX thing and offers this quivering insight:<br /><br />"The evidence is overwhelming – month after month, quarter after quarter, year after year – that the trade deficit and GDP rise and fall together."<br /><br />Yeah, I know how the US figures look.<br /><br />And I can guess without looking, that for nations with a trade surplus, Germany, China, the evidence is overwhelming that the trade <b>surplus</b> and GDP rise and fall together.<br /><br />Daniel Ikenson's argument, essentially, is that our trade deficit is a good thing because it is a sign our economy is growing.<br /><br />My counter argument is that a trade surplus is just as good, and for the same reason.<br /><br />Do you see how stupid Ikenson's argument is?<br /><br />Worst case, if you don't: If a trade surplus is just as good as a trade deficit, why not opt for the surplus?<br /><br />We can't get there, that's why. So instead we make up stories that a trade deficit is a good thing.<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.com