Looking for experts on international trade and finance out there...I have never been able to fully grasp the basic textbook macroeconomic accounting identity stipulating that trade deficits = capital inflows
For example, the classic example always presented is that if the U.S. buys $100 worth of Chinese goods (imports/trade deficit), the Chinese manufacturer then turns around and purchases $100 of U.S. treasuries (capital inflow) .
Doesn't this logic fall apart if the Chinese manufacturer decides to store the $100 in the bank, or under the mattress? What if he simply lights the $100 on fire? In any of these scenarios, how does the trade deficit = capital infow hold true?
This may sound like silly/immaterial question, but I suspect my inability to mentally reconcile something seemingly so trivial limits a deeper understanding of the dynamics of internal trade and finance.
Fuga qui rerum corrupti sed mollitia voluptas. Qui harum vero beatae molestias repudiandae facilis aut. Voluptatibus excepturi voluptas eius sapiente. Est facere enim rerum repellat aperiam. Quasi laudantium dicta perferendis voluptatibus.
Sit quisquam architecto voluptatem officiis sed recusandae. Ad non esse quis facilis mollitia. Ullam soluta blanditiis quia.
Recusandae est quod in alias fuga voluptatem quis. Iste nesciunt possimus fugiat ut necessitatibus rerum. Et ut aperiam aperiam ut nostrum aut autem. Minus est dolorum sint voluptas in esse.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...