The paper isn’t worthless. It represents face value in its denominated currency. Both the Honda car and the pile of paper represent an equivalent labor, differing only by the relative value of the currencies of the two countries.
Like I said, I don’t know what term you want to use to represent a large imbalance in trade. If my population has to work 40 hours a week to buy what your population produces in 10 hours a week, then my population is going to send all of its labor value to you in exchange for 25% of its labor value to me. That leaves 75% of its labor value to consume or trade with others.
They gain relative wealth. We lost relative wealth.
What am I missing? I know I made a simplistic example, but what am I missing here?
We are talking about 2 different things. Let’s take these 2 populations you discuss. The 10 hour a week pop. will be and is wealthier than the other pop. Period. But this has NOTHING whatever to do with any sort of trade def. or trad imbal. The poorer pop. could take 100% of its accumulated labor, valued at say X amount and trade it. In exchange for X value, they will receive exactly and precisely X amount of goods. Period.
If they traded with the richer pop., the richer pop will still have more stuff left over with which to trade with others; that just makes them richer. If my neighbor works at my house 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year, he has given me X amount of services. I’m way richer than he is. I give him X amount of paper. We are 100% even in our exchange. I still have 10X amount of paper to trade with others. What has this to do with a trade def?