Mercantilism and Protectionism: Don’t Worry About Trade Deficits

by | Nov 12, 2003

Earlier this month, the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings on legislation to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. While such action is unlikely, it shows that the political pressure to do something about growing imports from China is increasing. However, emotion rather than economics is driving the agenda. The only reason anyone cares about […]

Earlier this month, the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings on legislation to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. While such action is unlikely, it shows that the political pressure to do something about growing imports from China is increasing. However, emotion rather than economics is driving the agenda.

The only reason anyone cares about China’s trade is because it operates within a mercantilist framework. The mercantilists preached that countries should always strive to have a trade surplus and avoid trade deficits at all cost. That is partly because they viewed the flow of gold as central to economic well-being. Deficits led to an outflow of gold, which was bad, while surpluses led to an inflow of gold, which was good.

The Spanish were the best practitioners of mercantilism. When they conquered Latin America, they sent back vast sums of gold to the mother country, for a time making Spain the most powerful country on earth. But it all fell apart within a short time, as the money was simply wasted. And because the Spanish did not invest in their colonies, when the gold ran out, they no longer had any value.

By contrast, the British did not find any gold in their North American colonies. This was a huge disappointment to them. But in order to try and salvage some profit from their asset, they were forced to invest in the New World, creating new industries like tobacco. But, being mercantilists, the British insisted that all trade from the American colonies had to go through London, thereby increasing the cost of American goods and creating ill will that culminated in the American Revolution.

Although many of the Founding Fathers were protectionists, they weren’t mercantilists. Rather, they favored protection for the purpose of protecting America’s “infant” industries. But it never worked very well. In his great book, “The Tariff History of the United States,” economist Frank Taussig concluded that high tariffs did little to stimulate domestic production. This is evident in the fact that the United States ran a trade deficit almost continuously from 1790 to 1875.

A key reason for the trade deficit is that the United States was the China of its day: a place where cheap land greatly reduced production costs, just as cheap labor reduces costs in China. This led to a flood of foreign investment into the United States, especially in transportation technology like railroads, which were the Internet of their day. It is a simple matter of accounting that when a nation is a net capital importer, it must run a trade deficit.

Thus when a nation has good economic prospects and attracts foreign investment, it tends to run deficits. Conversely, when its prospects are bleak and capital is trying to escape the country, it will tend to run surpluses. Therefore, the existence of a surplus or deficit may tell us exactly the opposite of what the mercantilists believed. Deficits may be a sign of strength, while surpluses are a sign of weakness.

Unfortunately, mercantilism lives on at the U.S. Commerce Department, where deficits are viewed as nothing but pure evil, stealing American jobs and wealth. Hence, Commerce Secretary Don Evans’ increasingly shrill attacks on China for contributing heavily to the U.S. trade deficit. Implicitly, he assumes that if we could make China’s costs of production higher, that we would somehow benefit because production would shift back from China to here. A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago explains why this won’t happen:

“Rather than displacing domestic production … rising imports may serve rising demand for some types of goods in the home country. So, too, imports can consist of intermediate components that become embodied in domestic production of a final good. To the extent that such components are most cheaply sourced overseas, they may help to keep domestic production competitive for the final goods in the domestic market, or even allow domestic producers to export the final good to third country markets.”

In other words, by utilizing China’s cheap labor, it actually increases the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. They often export unfinished goods made here to plants they own in China and export them back here or somewhere else. When sold here, much of the gain accrues to those in the retail sector and to consumers, while U.S. investors reap the return to capital. Consequently, the vast bulk of the total gains from final sales accrue to Americans, even though most of the work is done in China.

Unfortunately, China is too easy a target for unscrupulous politicians in the United States, who are pushing for tariffs on Chinese goods. Sadly, some of these politicians work in the Bush administration. Those who know better, like Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw, must try harder to make their voices heard.

Editor’s Note: Their are political reasons to worry about China–the fact that it is a communist country and all that implies. See further commentary on China, especially:

Truth vs. Words on China by Andrew Lewis
Bush is appeasing China by adopting Clinton’s distinctive tactic–twisting words to make them mean whatever one wants them to mean.

China’s Gymnastic Gulag by Robert W. Tracinski
American journalists have an obligation to tell us the unvarnished truth about life under China’s Communist dictatorship.

Bruce Bartlett is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

If young people worry and wonder about their retirement future, their health care, and medical needs, their chance to afford a place to live, and a reasonable possibility for their lives to be better and more prosperous than their parents, it is precisely because government over the decades has either taken over or heavy- handedly imposed itself over all these and other sectors of the American economy — and brought them to financial crisis and imbalance.

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The most equitable and just sharing of the burden of America’s military is assured by its all-volunteer nature, and that conscription would be inequitable and unjust.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest