IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, January 11, 2008

 
Forget the Trade Deficit
(previous | next)
 

Obsession over the trade deficit is one of the most dangerous pastimes of economists, politicians, and the press. It fuels anti-trade sentiment and tempts people to close our borders to capital and trade. This morning we hear that November's trade deficit "swelled" -- "widening to the biggest gap in 14 months."

Lou Dobbs and other anti-trade figures lead most people to believe that the trade deficit is the result of unfairly inexpensive imports from China. Protectionists and many manufacturers urge a weaker dollar to supposedly compensate for supposedly artificially weak foreign currencies and make American products more competitive. Well, over the last few years, the Fed has complied, and the protectionists have gotten their wish: a much weaker dollar. We've even seen American exports rise smartly. But guess what, none of that has helped the trade deficit. You can't get something for nothing, certainly not by manipulating the value of your currency.

Why has the trade deficit kept rising even as the dollar weakened and exports grew? Because by far the largest component of the rising deficit these last few years has been spiking petroleum imports. An inflationary dollar juiced oil prices to record highs. So foreigners could buy American products a bit more cheaply, but Americans had to buy oil at $70, $80, and now $90. Foreign beneficiaries are now attempting to reinvest those petrodollars back into the U.S. -- see Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, etc. -- if we will let them.

The simple rule of international economics is that you can't change the terms of trade by changing the unit of account. In other words, you can't increase competitiveness by devaluing your currency. Short-term gains are met or even outweighed by short-term losses, and over the long-term it's a wash or possibly an inflationary disaster.

America has enjoyed -- yes, enjoyed -- a trade deficit for 350 of the last 400 years. All it means is we've been a destination for capital. A trade deficit means a capital surplus. The last two times we "achieved" a trade surplus were in the recessions of 1990-91 and 1981-82. In my dictionary, trade surplus is a dirty word.

Lesson one: forget the trade deficit.

Lesson two: if you can't follow lesson one, remember that a trade deficit equals a capital surplus.

posted by Bret Swanson @ 9:43 AM | Trade

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Comments

Dear Bret,

The US started to be in trade deficit only 25 yrs ago. Prior to that date it was actually (exporting) so much, that it had trade surplus.

The capital surplus you are talking about is NOT something you should be proud of. Its the world LENDING you money, mainly by buying your bonds, and sometimes your assets. So, in the long run, the Americans will end up owing the world trillions AND not owning what's in their country.

Plus, the world will not CONTINUE to lend you forever, sooner or later they will know you CANNOT pay it back, and they will STOP paying for your prosperity.

Regards,
Essam

Posted by: Essam Al-Zamel at January 11, 2008 4:48 PM

Dear Bret,

The US started to be in trade deficit only 25 yrs ago. Prior to that date it was actually (exporting) so much, that it had trade surplus.

The capital surplus you are talking about is NOT something you should be proud of. Its the world LENDING you money, mainly by buying your bonds, and sometimes your assets. So, in the long run, the Americans will end up owing the world trillions AND not owning what's in their country.

Plus, the world will not CONTINUE to lend you forever, sooner or later they will know you CANNOT pay it back, and they will STOP paying for your prosperity.

Regards,
Essam

Posted by: Essam Al-Zamel at January 11, 2008 4:50 PM

Post a Comment:





 
Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- DACA
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.
 










The Progress & Freedom Foundation