α)Το ελλειμα εισαγωγων εξαγωγων, δεν ειναι και ελλειμα συναλλαγματος αφου πρεπει να μπει και ο τουρισμος, που ειναι επι της ουσιας εξαγωγικη δραστηριοτητα.
β)Ειναι ΗΛΙΘΙΟ να θες να εχεις πλεονασμα εξαγωγων γιατι τοτε, αν το εκανε καθε χωρα, θα κατερρεε η διεθνης οικονομια.Το γεγονός πως το πιπιλάνε οι Γερμανοί επειδή τους συμφέρει, δεν ισχύει κιόλας.
γ)Σε εναν κοσμο, οπου ο τριτος Κοσμος ολο και περισσοτερο βιομηχανοποιειται με μικρα μεροκαματα ενω άνω του 50% του ΑΕΠ του 1ου κοσμου ειναι η καταναλωση, πρεπει να εισαι ΠΟΛΥ ΚΡΕΤΙΝΟΣ να ριξεις τα λεφτα σου στη βιομηχανια.
δ)Το εμπορικο ελλειμα γενικα δεν ειναι προβλημα καθοτι θα επανερθει σε διαστημα χρονου.Ειναι προβλημα ΟΤΑΝ ΘΕΣ ΙΣΧΥΡΟ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΛΑΧΙΣΤΟ ΠΛΗΘΩΡΙΣΜΟ.
Αυτο απαντα γιατι η θρησκευτική σέχτα στο Βερολίνο είναι obsessed with trade surplus.Οι άνθρωποι ειναι πρωτογονοι μερκαντιλιστές που θα καταστρέψουν την διεθνή κοινότητα με την εμμονή τους στον πληθωρισμό, αυτα τα ζητηματα η φιλελευθερη Δ.Ευρώπη τα έχει λήξει καιρό τώρα και παραμένουν μόνο στους μεσαιωνικούς Μεσευρωαπαίους ως εμμονές.
ΓΙα να δουμε και τι λεει ο Φριντμαν (ναι ΑΥΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΚ ΚΑΙ ΔΕΟΥΣ)
Friedman argued that trade deficits are not necessarily as important as high exports raise the value of the currency, reducing aforementioned exports, and vice versa for imports, thus naturally removing trade deficits not due to investment. Since 1971, when the Nixon administration decided to abolish fixed exchange rates, America's Current Account accumulated trade deficits have totaled $7.75 Trillion as of 2010. This deficit exists as it is matched by investment coming into the United States- purely by the definition of the balance of payments, any current account deficit that exists is matched by an inflow of foreign investment.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. had experienced high inflation and Friedman's policy positions tended to defend the stronger dollar at that time. He stated his belief that these trade deficits were not necessarily harmful to the economy at the time since the currency comes back to the country (country A sells to country B, country B sells to country C who buys from country A, but the trade deficit only includes A and B). However, it may be in one form or another including the possible tradeoff of foreign control of assets. In his view, the "worst-case scenario" of the currency never returning to the country of origin was actually the best possible outcome: the country actually purchased its goods by exchanging them for pieces of cheaply made paper. As Friedman put it, this would be the same result as if the exporting country burned the dollars it earned, never returning it to market circulation.[23]
This position is a more refined version of the theorem first discovered by David Hume.[24] Hume argued that England could not permanently gain from exports, because hoarding gold (i.e., currency) would make gold more plentiful in England; therefore, the prices of English goods would rise, making them less attractive exports and making foreign goods more attractive imports. In this way, countries' trade balances would balance out.[25]
Friedman believed that deficits would be corrected by free markets as floating currency rates rise or fall with time to encourage or discourage imports in favor of the exports, reversing again in favor of imports as the currency gains strength. In the real world, a potential difficulty is that currency markets are far from a free market, with government and central banks being major players, and this is unlikely to change within the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, recent developments have shown that the global economy is undergoing a fundamental shift. For many years, the U.S. has borrowed and bought while in general, the rest of the world has lent and sold.
As of October 2007, the U.S. dollar weakened against the euro, British pound, and many other currencies. For instance, the euro hit $1.42 in October 2007,[26] the strongest it has been since its birth in 1999. Against this backdrop, American exporters are finding quite favorable overseas markets for their products and U.S. consumers are responding to their general housing slowdown by slowing their spending. Furthermore, China, the Middle East, central Europe and Africa are absorbing more of the world's imports which in the end may result in a world economy that is more evenly balanced. All of this could well add up to a major readjustment of the U.S. trade deficit, which as a percentage of GDP, began in 1991.[27]
Friedman contended that the structure of the balance of payments was misleading. In an interview with Charlie Rose, he stated that "on the books" the US is a net borrower of funds, using those funds to pay for goods and services. He essentially claimed that the foreign assets were not carried on the books at their higher, truer value.
Friedman presented his analysis of the balance of trade in Free to Choose, widely considered his most significant popular work.
