Dah 16 Tahun Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, Kajol Baru Nak Dedahkan Fakta Ini

Posted on

In the light of the foregoing, it will be proper to analyze the views of various scholars who have posited on this topic in a bid to draw a deductive conclusion from their argument to serve a template for drawing a conclusion. This would be explained sequentially as follow;

(a) Frédéric Bastiat on the fallacy of Trade Deficits.
(b) Adam Smith on Trade Deficits.
(c) John Maynard Keynes on balance of Trade.
(d) Milton Freidman on Trade Deficit.
(e) Warren Buffet on Trade Deficit.

3.1. Frédéric Bastiat on the fallacy of Trade Deficits

The 19th century economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat expressed the idea that Trade Deficits actually were a manifestation of profit, rather than a loss. He proposed as an example to suppose that he, a Frenchman, exported French wine and imported British coal, turning a profit. He supposed he was in France, and sent a cask of wine which was worth 50 francs to England. The customhouse would record an export of 50 francs. If, in England, the wine sold for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent), which he then used to buy coal, which he imported into France, and was found to be worth 90 francs in France, he would have made a profit of 40 francs. But the customhouse would say that the value of imports exceeded that of exports and was Trade Deficit against the ledger of France. looking at his arguments properly, one would say that it is most adequate to have a Trade Deficit over a Trade Surplus. In this Vain, it is glaringly obvious that domestic Trade or internal Trade could turn a supposed Trade Surplus into a Trade Deficit if the cited example of Fredric Bastiat is applied. This was later, in the 20th century, affirmed by economist Milton Friedman.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *