#212 How a complex global trade system has reduced poverty, raised incomes, increased productivity, and lowered prices while a trade war will reverse those trends. You can find show notes and links here. Thanks to Blooom and Wunder Capital for sponsoring this episode. Episode Summary President Trump recently unveiled new tariffs on trade with China, and many fear this decision could lead to a trade war. This 25% tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports into the U.S. and an additional $216 billion of announced tariffs will change the trade landscape in the coming months. On this episode of Money For the Rest of Us, David explains why trade wars tend to increase the prices of goods and the poverty rate. He discusses the consequences attached to global trade tariff decisions and outlines why healthy global trade is successful in reducing poverty. To hear informed information about the complexities of tariffs and global trade, be sure to give this episode your full attention. Why does the US run such a large trade deficit with China? In 2017, China exported over $500 billion worth of goods to the US. In that same year, the US exported $130 billion to China, resulting in a trade deficit of $375 billion. Why is this figure so high? There are three main reasons why the US has such a large trade deficit with China: China has a lower standard of living and pays workers lower wagesTechnology and the internet has reduced the risk to US businesses when importing from ChinaAt times, the Chinese yuan is too weak relative to the US dollarHealthy global trade reduces poverty - here’s why Countless economists and writers have examined why healthy global trade reduces poverty. In 1981, the percentage of the world’s population living in extreme poverty was holding at 42%. Since then, the number of people living at that level of income has fallen by 1 billion. And in 2013, the most accurate data puts the world’s population living in extreme poverty was 10%. This figure has fallen so dramatically because of trade, specifically because China has significantly ramped up its manufacturing capabilities and exports, increasing household income through higher wages. From 1820 to 1920, in Great Britain the percentage of the population in extreme poverty fell from 40% down to 10% from the 1820s to 1920s. From 1870 to 1970, Japan did the same - taking their poverty population from 80% down to nearly 0%. China is on course to reduce extreme poverty even faster. To hear more about the relationship between poverty and trade, don’t miss this episode of Money For the Rest of Us. Global tariffs can lead to unintended consequences Trends show that both the US and China are wealthier because of trade. However, trade wars have the power to reverse those trends and increase the level of global poverty once more. There are 2 types of unintended consequences: those that are positive and natural, and those that are negative and disruptive. Positive consequences include developing powerful and beneficial global relationships between countries producing various goods. However negative consequences could destroy a complicated global supply network that has been slowly built, year by year, into the powerhouse that it is today. Companies and industries are adaptable when tariffs are imposed. However, there’s only so much flexibility a company can handle before having to make sacrifices. Moving production facilities, cutting wages, or increasing prices when faced with steep tariffs. These consequences should never be overlooked when considering new tariff plans and laws. Trade wars aren’t the solution to unfair trade practices - but THIS is Trade wars caused by broad based tariffs are not the solution to unfair trade practices. In order to remain globally competitive and productive, US companies need trade deals that recognize the strength that comes from global operations and supply chains. Trade wars are a complex subject, and this need-to-know info is best understood by listening to this podcast episode. Check it out!  Episode Chronology [0:42] The Trump administration's recent tariffs could lead to a trade war, increasing prices and poverty[2:24] Why does the US run such a huge trade deficit with China?[6:47] Historical data on tariff rates across the decades[8:38] Trade reduces poverty - here’s why![11:12] Measuring the wealth of a nation is important in the trade wars discussion[15:51] Reducing trade deficits cannot be solved through trade wars[19:08] There are 2 types of unintended consequences[23:30] Companies will adapt to trade tariffs, no matter the circumstances [28:24] Broad-brush trade barriers don’t work![33:40] So what is the solution to unfair trade practice?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

#210 Why fair markets require uncertainty for both the buyer and the seller, and why sellers don't need to disclose everything they know to the buyer. More information, including show notes, can be found here. Thanks to Wunder Capital for sponsoring this week's episode. Episode Summary A recent listener of the Money For the Rest of Us podcast posed the question, “Are there always winners and losers when trading?” This question is the focus of this episode of the podcast. David explains an age-old thought experiment created by Cicero and how it relates to modern financial decision making. The key differences between concealing and simply not revealing information are discussed and how trading decisions can be ethical for all involved. David also explains how high-frequency trading bots exist outside the parameters of conscious decision making and how they can impact market volatility. It’s an episode full of great insights and should not be missed, so be sure to listen. There’s a key difference between concealing and not revealing information In Cicero’s thought experiment, there is a grain seller that has imported foreign goods during a period of domestic hardship. Is the seller required to disclose information of additional shipments coming into the market soon? Or is he able to sell his stores at a higher price, without telling the buyers what he knows? David explains that technically it would be an ethical sale since there’s not a defect in the grain he’s selling. The seller isn’t concealing critical information, he’s simply using the current market conditions to his benefit. To hear David’s full summary of this scenario, be sure to listen to this episode. The outcome of a transaction should be unknown for all parties involved in order to be ethical Simply put, the outcome for any transaction must be equally unknown to all parties involved in order to be considered ethical. David explains by saying, “If they (buyers and sellers) go in not knowing exactly what's going to happen, and there isn't a defect that is being concealed, then that's just how markets work.” These schools of thought differ between normal commerce and financial markets In normal commerce, where a buyer purchases a product from a seller at a specific price point, there is an exchange of currency and value. The buyer loses money but gains function and value from the product. The seller reaps financial benefits from the transaction. Even if the seller then drops the price, it’s ethical because there wasn’t a defect in the product at the original price point. For financial markets, there generally will be a winner and loser because the price WILL change. The key is both buyers and sellers go into the transaction with a level of uncertainty. How could high-frequency trading bots influence market volatility? In this episode of Money For the Rest of Us, David also explains how high-frequency trading bots can increase market volatility, or the level of risk involved in transactions. Human traders have a point of view, a position, and a set of moral ethics. Bots based on algorithms do not. That’s why when “shocks of unknown origin” crop up in the market, most bots will simply sell or back out entirely. This can result in a negative feedback loop leading to even less liquidity from high-frequency traders and multiple flash crashes. David says that “There is a risk of higher volatility because here markets have changed. Most trading in stocks is no longer an investor with a fundamental view. It's an algorithm, and we could have more downside when the next bear market comes along.” Episode Chronology [0:44] Discussing the idea of “winners and losers” in investing and financial markets [4:45] Is full market disclosure recommended? Is keeping some information private immoral? [10:35] The difference between concealing and not revealing information [13:17] This is why laws come and go, but ethics stay [16:04] The outcome of a transaction should be unknown for all parties involved in order to be ethical [19:10] Why could high-frequency traders (bots) increase market volatility? [24:33] The difference between value and knowledge in normal commerce and financial markets See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.