From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Mon Dec 27 1999 - 08:56:43 MST
On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, EvMick@aol.com wrote:
>
> I've heard it said that there is something fundamentally unsound about the
> concept of a "trade balance".....
"Trade balance" is redundant.
If it wasn't balanced ("balanced" = both parties got what they wanted),
then it is coercion instead of "trade". The only people who would
consider a trade "unbalanced" are third parties who obviously value the
goods being traded differently than those who are actually executing the
trade.
In a free market, trade "imbalances" can't exist. It is ironic that the
governments that complain about imbalances are usually responsible for
any real imbalances in the first place.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:12 MST