Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Comment | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MIT | Uncertain | 5 |
Consumption and investment smoothing is good. But often CA deficits support consumption booms that are unsustainable. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Uncertain | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Disagree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Disagree | 7 |
Perhaps in the very short run, but not in equilibrium. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
MIT | Disagree | 6 |
There is no reason to think the relation is causal |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Uncertain | 7 |
Depends on circumstances. To return to steady state, export growth model worked well for China, Asian Tigers and Germany after WW II. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Harvard | Uncertain | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Disagree | 2 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Strongly Disagree | 6 |
There is no conceptual or empirical support for this. It depends on dynamics and discount rates. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Disagree | 2 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Disagree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Disagree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Disagree | 4 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Chicago | Uncertain | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Stanford | Uncertain | 6 |
Focusing on trade is basically mercantilism. I take a global perspective, where trade always nets to zero, so this focus is meaningless. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Strongly Disagree | 10 |
A trade surplus means a country is saving, a trade deficit that it is dis-saving. As with people each can make sense at different times. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
MIT | Agree | 7 |
Depends on circustances. For small open economies and emerging economies an essential element of policy. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Uncertain | 8 |
1st principles: neither surplus nor deficit necessarily welfare-enhance. SOME welfare-enhancing policies would raise surplus, however. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | No Opinion | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Stanford | Strongly Disagree | 8 |
The best way to increase welfare is to engage in good policies, not go after some mercantilist ideal. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | No Opinion | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Chicago | Strongly Disagree | 10 |
crazy assertion but plenty of people seem to believe this. to see the fallacy, note that banning imports would do it and would crush welfare |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Strongly Disagree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Uncertain | 3 |
In some cases, yes, for at least some citizens. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Strongly Disagree | 9 |
Trade surplus is symptom, not measure of welfare. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Uncertain | 4 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Disagree | 6 |
A surplus is often taken to indicate a healthy economy, but it is not obvious how producing more than it consume makes a country better off. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
MIT | Disagree | 4 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | No Opinion | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Chicago | Uncertain | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | No Opinion |
Seems like the right answer to this question is: it depends. |
Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Disagree | 6 |
There may be policies that reduce trade deficits and increase welfare, but most policies *designed* to reduce deficits will reduce welfare. |
Bio/Vote History |