I don't even need any words for this one, just graphs.

Your graphs (1) aren't aligned, (2) ignore a plethora of more important information, and (3) suck for using on this topic.

You do not understand economics. Don't talk about it.

When people talk about "weaker currency" in regards to exporting, it has absolutely zero relevancy to what you just posted. Zero. None. Nada. Nunco. Not a single bit. It has to do with said currency's comparison to other nations' currency. What you posted was in regards to inflation; in international trade economics, it has to do with exchange rate (which IS affected by inflation, but it has to do with inflation for BOTH countries, of which we have absolutely zero information in this thread, which therefore makes this thread entirely null and void. It also has to do with the economic strength of the nations in general, which is a lot more complicated).

I'm not sure I understand, Samuel. I'm Canadian, and my father was selling products to the states and making good money off the fact that the Canadian dollar was weaker than the american dollar.

I'm not sure I understand what the graphs are comparing the american dollar to, and who is exporting to who.

Hahahaha.

1) Point being? They don't need to be aligned. If weaker currencies meant more exports, why does the trade deficit increase? (Notice, I'm not claiming the reverse to be true, just that the myth is false. Correlation does not prove causation, but a lack of correlation does prove a lack of causation).

2) Care to point out the more important information?

3) Yeah, they do suck. Turns out, Google images is kinda shitty for finding graphs.

I'm not gonna bother with the last statement.

That's comparing American dollars throughout time, to American dollars in 1913.

That's the net trade balance between the USA and all other countries, as a percentage of GDP.

He's trying to make a point out of the fact that, as the US dollar becomes "weaker" (see: in this thread, he's using a graph about inflation, which isn't related to the international strength of the dollar very much at all), we also have been going further into deficit. But, as I edited into my initial post, that's not true. His information doesn't include anything about internationally competitive values whatsoever.

You're vastly oversimplifying, you know.

And Tonestarr is right (which is why i'm not going to moderate him), not that you "don't" understand economics, but you know you understand economics better than this. Pretty much everyone's got inflation to some degree or other, and any currency that has existed as long as the US dollar is going to have lost more or less as much value. Especially egregious because you're comparing the dollar across FOUR major international currency exchange schemes (gold standard, interwar currency wars, Bretton Woods, and the current Floating regime) and confusing inflation for depreciation which, while related, are not one in the same at all. Aside from the fact that running across such a large period of time entails significant changes in global systems

You can do better than this.

Lets say you make cars and Germans make cars their currency increased in value yours decreased. So chinese people get US cars for less money compared to before the currency value changed. German cars get more expensive.

So chances are good you will sell more cars compared to your foreign competition.


its not like FACT: WEAKER CURRENCY MEANS MORE EXPORT! It just can be the case. And if your goods are not good enough and your marketing is fail etc all the currency stuff is basically useless.


The problem is no country wishes for weaker currency because weaker currency makes imports way to expensive. So countries always try to balance and print more money if their currency is to strong so decreases in value etc.

All countries do this.

@Point 2, Check his edit, I think he makes sense.

Here's the problem with your argument: if you were to go above-and-beyond the debasing of other countries, and thus force your currency to lower relative to other countries, all you're doing is increasing prices at home, even more so than those abroad. People in France may be able to buy more US dollars, but they won't be able to buy as many things WITH those dollars.

Of course, there is a time delay between the initial printing and the actual price increases, but that time delay is dependant on how quickly the newly-printed bills enter circulation. So, if exports increase rapidly (or, imports fall, and people buy more domestic goods), and this creates the economic activity wanted, all that happens is prices increase faster, and the sugar-high from the cheap money hits its lull much sooner.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not tying the the debasement to increasing trade deficits, I'm just saying that it doesn't stand to decrease trade deficits. Increasing trade deficits have a lot to do with other areas of policy - taxation, regulation, deficit spending - which turns producers into consumers.