Germany is currently the country with the largest trade surplus, and many Germans think that this is a good thing. In the United States, the situation is the reverse. The US has the world’s largest trade deficit. It amounts to USD 502.25 billion for 2016.

A country’s trade balance is equal to the difference between a country’s national savings and its gross investment. Savings reflect the difference between income and consumption. Thus, a country with a surplus consumes or invests too little given its income. That is the case with Germany. In America, it is the other way around.

Well, the Fed released the minutes of its January FOMC meeting and lo and behold, there was nothing of interest. It was the same bland “Real Soon Now” talk regarding rates, coupled with a dose of “we don’t really have a clear picture just yet.” Imagine that. They’re going to keep their eye on inflation trends and the unemployment rate, which is comforting given the fact that they are the source of inflation and unstable labor markets. 

The title of this talk, as some of you will know, is taken from a recent book by the heroic Russian dissident intellectual, Andrei Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive to 1984?1 What is implied is not that things will suddenly go kaput in 1984 — that

Our country is beset by a large number of economic myths that distort public thinking on important problems and lead us to accept unsound and dangerous government policies. Here are ten of the most dangerous of these myths and an analysis of what is wrong with them.

Myth #1

Deficits are the cause of inflation; deficits have nothing to do with inflation.

Globalization has fallen into disrepute. More and more people are rejecting it outright as unfair and as a source of all sorts of evil — including economic crises and migration.

This kind of blanket condemnation of globalization however is a huge problem. The reason for this becomes apparent if one considers the fact that globalization has two dimensions, an economic and a political one.

Hope is in short supply these days, while despair and hate are enjoying an enormous surplus.

In a time when Federal Reserve reforms are discussed more openly than ever before, it seems appropriate to also think about the more fundamental question of whether central banks are needed in the first place. In 1936, Vera C. Smith (later Lutz) published her doctoral dissertation The Rationale of Central Banking written under Friedrich A. von Hayek at the London School of Economics.

Neal Gabler is a writer of some prominence. You may have heard of his Walt Disney biography, just one of several award-winning books, but one that many consider definitive. Or of his television career spanning several decades, including a stint as a co-host of a popular PBS program. Or perhaps you knew that he taught writing at the University of Michigan and Penn State, and has had appointments at USC and Harvard. 

When it comes to success as a writer, Gabler would be considered to be among the so-called “one percent.” And good for him.

In a recent television interview, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, head of one of America’s largest health insurers, commented that selling insurance across state lines is “an outdated concept” in these days of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Bertolini went on to explain the rationale for his statement: “Insurance products are now tightly aligned with networks, so buying an insurance product from another state, that’s tied to a network in another state, really doesn’t work for people seeking care.”

The 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil cost Brazilian taxpayers $4.6 billion, conservative estimates show. But once related expenses covered by the Brazilian government are factored in, the overall costs hit the $12 billion mark, which equates to about 0.72 percent of Brazil’s national budget.