Talk:Balances Mechanics

Translated from German
Hi, this article is a translation of the German wikipedia article Saldenmechanik https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saldenmechanik. I am not an english native and my english sucks. So some of you might help to fix the typos and grammar stuff. I translated this articles because i think this is fundamental knwoledge, relatively easy to understand and because it is of arithmetric nature it is free of economic ideology. It shows basic principles that can be used by everybody, also to reveal common mistakes or even lies of economics or politicians. Polimind (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Saldenmechanik": "Mechanics of Balances"
Bruun translates "Saldenmechanik" as "Mechanics of Balances" (see Chapter 3 of her Dissertation, which summarizes Stützel's work in english). That sounds more like "native english" to me than "Balances Mechanics". Other than that, thanks for your effort! --Thewolf37 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about that too, but didn't find any translations and decided for "Balances Mechanics" because it sounds more like a title, a concise name, like Stützel used as well - while "Mechanics of Balances" could also be only a description of some common mechanism. I admit, the two plural "s" make it sound a bit constructed and first i was thinking about Balance Mechanics because it sounds more fluid, but it isn't like the original. The similar issue was with the term "Size mechanics", which also could be "Scale mechanics" or "Scaling mechanics". I decided for "Size" mechanics for the same reasons like above: the german term "Größenmechanik" used by Stützel already sounds uncommon for a german word - but that's the point: that makes it "unique". I am not much into the common procedure there in academics - is the translation which was used first in an academic paper the one that is to be used later as well (first comes, first serves)? - Polimind (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[rjmaris] I'd strongly suggest to use Bruun's naming of the term - thewolf37 said it: more like native english. As is used more often in Wikipedia articles, one could add some category indication between braces, e.g.

Mechanics of Balances (monetary theory)

It should be noted that Stützel regarded himself as a monetary theorist.

Further note: I wonder why "sentence" is used for every instance where Bruun uses "theorem". Moreover, where "Size Mechanics" is used I'd prefer Bruun's term "Relational Theorem", hence theorem instead of mechanics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.69.84 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"A national economy cannot save"
The article states:

With the balances it becomes obvious: a national economy cannot save. It references a Text by Wolfgang Waldner, who writes: "Eine Ökonomie kann kein Geld sparen, jede Einschränkung der Ausgaben führt zum Verlust von Einnahmen.", translated as "An economy cannot save money, every restriction of expenses leads to loss of revenues."

This should be corrected: A closed economy cannot save - thus, the world economy as a whole cannot save.

The statement, "a national economy cannot save" is simply incorrect: of course current account surpluses are possible, which then are offset by current account deficits of the "rest of the world" (the rest of the closed economy or, in Stützel's Terms, the complementary group).

Waldner's statement, "an economy cannot save money" is under-specified and thus can be misleading, since it does not state what kind of economy is referred to: a national economy (a partial group within the global group "world economy") or the world economy.

It is precisely these kind of misunderstandings that Stützel wanted to avoid. --Thewolf37 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Same here, i was thinking about that too, and maybe it is a translation mistake. In my understanding the term "economy" already includes "closed", but for the reasons you named i added "national" economy at some places for two reasons: 1. as "hint" or "addition" that it is to be viewed as closed - which probably was a mistake by me, an "improvorsement" ;), 2. because it specifically adresses a national economy (though it is valid in general as well). (In German language the term often is: A "Volkswirtschaft" cannot save - and "Volkswirtschaft" as term for a "national economy" with the implication "inner economy" (the economic activities between the economic actors IN the country).
 * So the point in question is wether the term "economy" already includes "closed" or not? If the term already (primarily) includes "closed", that sentence (without "national") is correct. If not, then not. Once an economy is open it becomes an economic entity which is defined by economic interrelations to other entities. I understand "A national economy cannot save" as "A national economy cannot save "by itself" or "in itself". In the text i could add a "(closed)" like you suggest: A (closed) economy cannot save. But how to "modify" the quote in english for that specification? - Polimind (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Below picture showing interdependent balances it says: a national economy cannot save. It´s a simple graphic, later showing extended, like content. I feel ok how it is. --Carlbrandner (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view, the term "economy" clearly does not specify whether a closed or open economy is meant. Therefore, to be clear, we must specify - that's the gist of Stützel's whole method: avoid unnecessary confusion by being precise enough. National economies are for the most part open economies today (even economies as "closed" as North Korea cannot live without exports and imports). Therefore, they are partial groups by definition, who can hold positive or negative net financial assets (current account balances). That means they can "save" in terms of net financial assets. To treat national economies as closed economies is a leftover habit from mercantilist times, where it applied grosso modo. In today's world with developed international division of labour, it is empirically false to treat national economies as closed economies, and therefore it is not done in international accounting. Why else would we have current account and trade balances? Stützel even specifies himself that "closed" economy can only mean "world economy" today. It does not help much if Stützel is misrepresented or sloppily understood. Rather, it will be detrimental because people who do not speak german cannot check his texts and will take what you say here at face value - assuming Stützel himself said this, implying that he did not understand even the most basic realities of today's world economy. --Thewolf37 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)