[mlo]

"In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible."

"This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less."

Milton Friedman

[newgeezer]

Friedman ROCKS. Thanks for sharing that.

[xzins]

So, if you run a fruit stand, you’re ahead if you buy more goods than you sell? That doesn’t makes sense to me.

[ConservativeMind]

What Milton did not take into account was that our society, largely due to a loss of Christian work ethic and the addition of the Welfare State, leaves our nation at a true financial disadvantage. Add to that our policy is to over tax and over regulate businesses and individuals, while not getting anything back from which to recover those practices via an excise tax, and we wind up with sheer madness and a cycle into a hole in the ground.

Taxes are a penalty. Taxing imports is reasonable, as it appears taxing reportable work is also “reasonable.” But, which is healthier for a country, to penalize cheap imports that didn't employ a US citizen or pay taxes, or to penalize someone who does reportable work (and not tax welfare, etc.)?

Please tell us, oh wise one. Oh, and no country has "free trade" with any other country, today.

[AndyJackson]

I don’t think Friedman had in mind that the difference would be made up by a huge mortgage on our country, that their kids would be educated at the expense of our kids, that they would get property, houses, etc. at the expense of Americans.

[arrogantsob]

So now we are exporting dollars for the most part.

[Oatka]

Friedman has things bass ackwards.

It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance.
No it isn't.

That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in.
That's good. We're producing more and getting money for goods we make.

Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less."
Apples and oranges, or more precisely, Alice in Wonderland. A household is not a cottage industry. The person brings in money (earned by making things here) and spends it on stuff, either made here or elsewhere.

On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use.
And those items can be made here as well, employing the citizenry. You can't buy much it you don't have a job, or have one at a subsistence wage.