Microeconomics starts with the basic fact that each person has short term and long term goals, like buying a ham sandwich and graduating from college. People act in the world to accomplish something. Human action is purposive. You employ different means to achieve certain goals.
The Chinese "yellow peril" was the late nineteenth century menace. And today, write Cecil Bohanon and T.N. Van Cott, the menace is outsourcing. The Chinese and Indians are selling Americans things like computer software at bargain basement prices. But there is nothing special about outsourcing software technology. All that matters is whether the Chinese and Indians sell for less than what current American software producers could earn in their next most lucrative employment. If so, outsourcing enhances U.S. living standards.
The Center for Responsible Lending says that payday lending is a predatory business in that it lures borrowers into a "debt trap." Mike Foley says this view is all wrong: pay-day lending provides liquidity when it is most needed, and an an opportunity to establish a positive credit history.
The period from the onset of World War I until the demise of the Soviet empire in 1991 has been called the "great parenthesis" in western history, writes JG Hülsmann. The United States offered virtually the only safe haven for capital investments. Among the beneficiaries of this somewhat artificial increase of the capital stock were the American wage earners. Now this epoch is drawing to an end--to the ultimate benefit of all.
Trade with China is beneficial to the U.S. economy, writes Grant Nülle, but grave danger lurks in the area of monetary policy. Beijing is furnishing cheap credit to finance Washington's fiscal deficit and consumer indebtedness in America, accentuating a misallocation of capital and investment priorities propagated by the Fed-backed fiat money. Meanwhile, China's four largest state-owned banks, which together claim 61% of the country's loans and 67% of its deposits, are saddled with mounting bad debts.
If the benefiting consumers from an innovation are largely outside of a given country, writes Robert Murhpy, then it is indeed true that the people in that country might actually be poorer as a result of the innovation. But in that case, no trade policy can change things. On the other hand, if enough of the benefiting consumers are inside a particular country, then the people in that country are helped (on net) by the innovation.
Hal Varian doesn't tell us why the dollar bill in our pocket has value, writes Frank Shostak. To say that the value of money is due to social convention is to say very little. What Varian has told us is that money has value because it is accepted, and why it is accepted? Because it is accepted! Obviously this is not a good explanation of why money has value.
Mateusz Machaj, founder of the Mises Institute, Poland, argues that international trade theory isn't a stand-alone topic. It is a practical application of general trade theory to trading between persons from different countries. There is no difference between mobility of factors of production inside or outside a country.
Beware of trade restrictions, writes N. Joseph Potts; they are often followed by war. Iraq is only one case. The United States embargoed sales of scrap iron to Japan before the war with that country began in 1941, and probably worse, secretly colluded with Britain, China, and the Netherlands (which at the time controlled oilfields in Indonesia) to deny petroleum resources to Japan, a step still cited today in Japanese accounts of the causes of its war with the United States.
Some distinguished theorists have lately entered into a debate over the merits of free trade after two of them had suggested that "free trade has necessary conditions" and "today these conditions are not met". In particular, they mean that David Ricardo's law of comparative advantage don't hold if the "factors of production" are free to move around, particularly if money and laboring persons are able to move faster than goods. Thus, in a way, this argument says that since people are free to move around, move their money around as well as their goods, free trade is bad. But how can it be that free movement of persons, money and goods is bad for free trade? How can it be that free trade is bad for free trade?
