Winterspeak addresses some of Ramanan's observations.
A point of clarification. Winterspeak says, "One of the more interesting MMT insights, as stated by Mosler, is "exports are a cost, imports are a benefit", which is the opposite of the usual narrative where export driven economies, like Japan, are hailed while import driven economies, like the US, are said to be more vulnerable."
What Warren and MMT economists say is that ""exports are a REAL cost, imports are a REAL benefit," implying a monetary system in which an independent currency ("sovereign" currency) is neither a real good nor backed by a promise of the issuer to exchange it for anything real. I don't believe that is controversial in economics.
The notion that n export-driven economic is superior to an import-driven one is a holdover from the metal standard, e.g., where international trade was settled in gold or silver and the wealth of a nation was measured by its stock of precious metal.
That's the mercantilist position. While it is over, the same thinking persists, some would say irrationally. Now, the rational position is to prefer an advantage in real terms if it is possible to achieve, since national prosperity is measured in consumption rather than either financial claims or gold stock.
winterspeak.com
Flexible Exchange Rates, MMT, and the Ruble Crises of MMT
On matter related to trade that often doesn't enter the discussion in economics is relative power. Power has been demonstrated in the extreme historically in imperialism and colonialism, and the slave trade, for instance. However even in contemporary, and supposedly, post-imperial and post-colonial times, power imbalance also results in economic and financial imbalance in trade, and usually this is in favor of the more powerful nation in the trade relationship.
