[late]

A] Poor nations must export more than they import or go into debt, in the old days it was see their gold be drained away.

B] Now this goes for EU & EZ nations because of the way the EU is set up... Gold standard

C] MMTers view is =>
. . 1] Warren Mosler says that exports are a cost, but he is speaking about the real resources. To export a nation mines, makes, or harvests its stuff and sends it overseas for paper or digital money. He then says that imports are a benefit. When one imports stuff it is others who do the work and use their resources to make the stuff, and you just give them paper or digital money for it.
. .

D] Mainstream economic theories and, therefore MS economists, say little about international trade. What they say is designed to help the rich at the expense of the mass of the people. Once, you grok that fact everything makes a lot more sense. In a way MS economists are like MAGA Repuds, both will say the opposite of what the truth is if it, right now, benefits their Bosses. For MAGA it is Trump, for the economists it is the ultra rich.
E] So, the US had it very good after WWII. We traded our cash for their stuff. They needed the cash to rebuild their nations after they were damaged or smashed by the war. It was a good deal for everyone. This ended when the US got too wealthy to be able to pump enough oil to fill its internal demand. We started to import oil. This destabilized the situation. The French (AFAIK) began to ask for our gold, so we took the world off the gold standard in Aug., '71.
F] Then the US had it even better. We bought their stuff with new dollars and they didn't want our stuff because it was too expensive or inferior to Japanese stuff/cars. Still, the world would save our dollars because they were more stable than most nations currencies and we sold a lot of bonds that paid interest. I think most people don't realize the importance of bond sales that have interest. When saving you want interest on your savings, if possible.
. . . This one reason that I doubt that the dollar will replaced by any other nation's currency in the next 20 years. And after that, ACC will be so bad the all money may be worthless. At least, internationally. And gold will be impossible to ship to make payments too.

"Poor nations must export more than they import" We are not poor.

They are not on the gold standard. What you meant is that they have to buy using dollars, and the Euro is falling against the dollar, making things more expensive.

"Mainstream economic theories and, therefore MS economists, say little about international trade" You missed the point, imports are what capitalism is about. It enables us to do stuff we simply couldn't without them, just as was the case in Renaissance Italy.

Income inequality is a variable, not a constant. Once you 'grok' (I can remember when that was new) that, things make a lot more sense. As I always say, it's a fight...

Oil was a trivial component. It was the combination of the Cold War and Vietnam that ran up the deficit, and gave France the opportunity to take a run at our gold.

[Steve_American]

"Poor nations must export more than they import" We are not poor.

They are not on the gold standard. What you meant is that they have to buy using dollars, and the Euro is falling against the dollar, making things more expensive.

"Mainstream economic theories and, therefore MS economists, say little about international trade" You missed the point, imports are what capitalism is about. It enables us to do stuff we simply couldn't without them, just as was the case in Renaissance Italy.

Income inequality is a variable, not a constant. Once you 'grok' (I can remember when that was new) that, things make a lot more sense. As I always say, it's a fight...

Oil was a trivial component. It was the combination of the Cold War and Vietnam that ran up the deficit, and gave France the opportunity to take a run at our gold.

No, that is not what I meant.
I meant the following =>
1] The nations in the EZ don't issue the euro
2] The other nation in the EU and those in the EZ must (in normal times) keep their deficit to 3% of theiir GDP and national debt to 60% of GDP.
3] Both of these are like being on the gold standard.
. . a] Because they could not make more gold. They needed to get it from someone else or mine it.
. . b] They therefore, had to protect their gold supply by not going too deep into debt to their citizens and not have a trade deficit for too long.
4] ln one way they are worse off than being on the gold standard. Bach then nations could protect their gold supply by devaluing their currency. EU nations are forbidden this protection. Those in the EZ because they don't issue the euro. The others because of a rule.

Late, you wrote, "Mainstream economists like importing more than exporting."
I replied that this doesn't apply to poor nations.
You replied, "We are not poor."
So what, I took your statement at face value, and didn't think you were just talking about the US.
So, I'm right in the general case, and you can be right if you just meant the US.

I think the cities stopped growing in area before Ike.
Cicero, Ill was not in Chicago in the 20s. So, maybe around WWI or the 20s.

When I was a kid in around 1950 the suburbs were well established.

Italy? I have no knowledge. But, at that time Italy was a trading then center and re-exported a lot at a profit. They imported to export. IIRC.
.

[Drlee]

From the original post @BlutoSays quoted:

The only state that’s population has been in decline longer, West Virginia, currently is suffering its ninth consecutive year of population decline.

You mean bright red West Virginia? Don't forget to add bright red Louisiana and Mississippi to your list while you are at it.

All in all 16 states are experiencing declining populations. Not one of them experiencing it as a result of politics.

Thread end. All done.

[BlutoSays]

From the original post @BlutoSays quoted:



You mean bright red West Virginia? Don't forget to add bright red Louisiana and Mississippi to your list while you are at it.

All in all 16 states are experiencing declining populations. Not one of them experiencing it as a result of politics.

Thread end. All done.

How do you know it's not a result of politics? As a state turns in to a steaming shit hole and opportunities close, people do choose to leave. Human behavior. Or are there suddenly only utopias everywhere?

[SpecialOlympian]

I mean we have to assume the people who are moving to states where women are losing rights and you can open carry to keep transfolk, or even just ugly people, from using the wrong bathroom must be massive shitheads so good for Illinois.

This is pathetic, absolutely pathetic, crowing from one of our forum's dumbest posters bragging about how the most populous and left leaning states are shedding minor amounts of their population. And because they can only view things through their moronic lens of "Own da libz" politics, they assume all people who are moving are former libs disgusted by state level politics. And assuming people even pay attention to state level politics is fucking lol.

Our OP posted an op-ed. And Chicago has tons of universities in it, alongside being a financial hub and general center of business. The number of people leaving is meaningless without accounting for who is an economic or educational emigrant.

[Rancid]

So people are leaving EVERYWHERE, for places where it is cheaper to live. Wow. Newsflash.

Yea, funny thing is, if these people move to red states, that means they are going to turn those states blue. THat said, REpublicans are good at manipulating the system for them to maintain power, but at some point, it have to give. Unless there is a coup... oh wait....

[BlutoSays]