Talk:J curve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wow. this is a seriously underdeveloped entry for the j-curve... i think i'll put some research together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.27.160 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC).
This cannot be right: "A lower exchange rate initially makes the trade balance... negative... as the goods and services being exported are being purchased for less domestic currency..." The exchange rate ensures that the same domestic money is earned despite the change in the foreign price (through direct change in exchange rate). For example, in simplest terms, at an exchange rate of $2 to the £, a £100 product would be on sale (ignoring transport, marketing costs abroad etc) for $200. Devaluing the £ so that the exchange rate is now $1.50 to a £ would mean the same good is now sold for $150 in the USA, but for each good THE BRITISH FIRM STILL EARNS £100 PER GOOD WHEN THE MONEY IS EXCHANGED. The firm's revenues only rise when more people start to buy that good. More demand obviously equals more money, but this is in the long run according to the j-curve, or at least made an ineffective change by demand for more expensive imports still being demanded for the short-run. This is not clear and, unless someone can show me otherwise, the statement above is an incorrect one.
[edit] Neoconservative??
To Discotropico and 212.202.233.19...I object to the classification of the J Curve as "neoconservative". As it appeared to be original research, I've removed the references (on J Curve justification for war, neoconservative link, etc...) for NPOV reasons. Care to elaborate on your reasoning? JGray 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
