Jump to content

Talk:Balance of trade/Archives/2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quality of this page

I'll admit that I'm not much of an econmist and don't understand all the ins and outs, but I must say that I feel this page doesn't have a high informational density. I understand that an issue that is so political is also fought over and needs a lot of discussion. But right now you have about 5 lines about what a trade deficit is and after that in essence 2 different portrails over "good" or "evil" of trade deficits. Especially the second chapter is in essence a rehash of one economic scientist. I feel that as controversial as the subject might be, that is really poor for an article. What sort of questions would I see answered in such an article? - What is a trade deficit? Ok, that is answered - though in a very rough way. - How is it exactly calculated? - On which basis is this data accumulated? Based on tax declaration of companies? - How has the subject been used in politics? One doesn't have to draw a conclusion but instead just portray how it has been used. - Why don't you just write one section which discusses the fact that modern economic research doesn't agree on one or the other in one section? - What is the meaning of it? What are the modern interpretations? This is probably the most controversial thing but I don't feel the different interperatations have been shown very well. --84.63.110.18 22:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

–– I found this article informative. My thanks to the contributors. I added links to the US Federal Reserve Data. 68.159.67.90 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)H.Hall

There is endless high-level debate on point of view, which I appreciate. I still got some information out of it. However, some of the writing is poor or even non-sentences, witness: Some economists and the Congressional Budget Office claim that GDP and employment [4][5]. An economy means increased demand for domestic and foreign products.

As people re-write sections, please pay attention to the quality of the English used as well. 69.74.33.222 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree that the article is not in good shape. It's not just the English or POV; much of the article needs a sanity check. For example, the section on classical theory quotes an interpretation by someone called Paul Craig Roberts that I doubt is consensus. Then there is a separate part for Adam Smith. The last time I checked, Adam Smith was a founder of classical economics! Don't exile him from his section to insert some random politician's nonsense instead! About every other sentence in the vicinity looks fishy and lacks citations. I'd appreciate if someone takes the time to remove such out-of-place propaganda or at least challenges the anti-globlization tone there. Vandroiy (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Everything after "Classical Theory" and before "Adam Smith..." is a mess. It's making an argument, it's a vague, haphazard, unorganized, confusing, contradictory, un-cited, irrelevant mess. It's validity, accuracy, and purpose has been questioned by users. It is beyond the ability to be edited or reasoned, challenges any credibility of this page, and needs to be removed. Promote the subtopic below it and be done with it. 68.63.19.44 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition, and 'Domestic Demand'

We say,

"The trade balance is identical to the difference between a country's output and its domestic demand (the difference between what goods a country produces and how many goods it buys from abroad; this does not include money re-spent on foreign stock, nor does it factor in the concept of importing goods to produce for the domestic market)."

This is nonsense. Domestic Demand does, in fact, include imports. The definition is Private Consumption Expenditure (PCE) + Government Consumption Expenditure (GVT) + Gross Fixed Capital Formation (CAP) + the Change in Inventories (STK) - Exports of Goods and Services (EXP) + Import of Goods and Services (IMP). The only difference between Domestic Demand and GDP is that in GDP, it is +EXP and -IMP. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There should be a "trade deficit" subsection

So that when you actually search for "trade deficit" it tells you about the negative aspects of balance of trade. Maybe something about what any nation would face if they have a trade deficit for many years 207.253.111.30 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is there only external links on US only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkw (talk • contribs) 13:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balance of trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balance_of_trade/Archives/2016&oldid=930281618"