Trade Deficit Angst

by | Mar 31, 2016

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade.

Let’s look at the political angst over trade deficits. A trade deficit is when people in one country buy more from another country than the other country’s people buy from them. There cannot be a trade deficit in a true economic sense. Let’s examine this.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. That means I have a trade deficit with my grocer. My grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him. But there is really no trade imbalance, whether my grocer is down the street, in Canada or, God forbid, in China.

Here is what happens: When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. For my grocer, it is the opposite. His goods account falls by $100, but his capital account rises by $100. Looking at only the goods account, we would see trade deficits, but if we included the capital accounts, we would see a trade balance. That is true whether we are talking about domestic trade or we are talking about foreign trade.

The uninformed buys into the mercantilist creed that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good. My George Mason University colleague Donald Boudreaux wrote a blog post titled “If Trade Surpluses are So Great, the 1930s Should Have Been a Booming Decade” (http://tinyurl.com/zh559n8). The U.S. had a current account trade surplus in nine of the 10 years of the Great Depression, with 1936 being the lone exception. The fact of the matter is that our nation has registered current account deficits throughout most of our history, from 1790 right up to our modern period (http://tinyurl.com/jczqrhu). Over that interval, we went from being a poor, relatively weak nation to the richest and most powerful nation in the history of mankind. So if, as our fearmongers would have it, current account deficits are so harmful, how did we accomplish that feat? Economies are far too complex to draw simple-minded causal connections between trade deficits and surpluses and economic welfare and growth.

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade. When we, as consumers, purchase goods from China and the Chinese do not spend a like amount for goods from us, there is a current account deficit. In 2015, Americans purchased $482 billion worth of goods from China. The Chinese purchased only $116 billion worth of goods from us, producing a current account deficit with China of $366 billion.

Now, here is my question to you: Do you think the Chinese are so charmed with green slips of paper with pictures of Benjamin Franklin that they just hoard them? No way. Instead of purchasing tangible goods, the Chinese purchase capital goods — such as corporate stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The Chinese purchase more capital goods from us than we purchase of the same from them. That means the deficit on our current account is matched by the surplus on our capital account.

A large portion of the surplus in our capital account consists of U.S. Treasury debt instruments held by foreigners. As of the first quarter of 2015, the Chinese held nearly $1.2 trillion in U.S. Treasurys. Japan’s holdings were slightly higher. European countries combined held over $1.5 trillion. Some politicians gripe about all the U.S. debt held by foreigners. Only a politician can have that kind of impudence. Guess who is creating the debt instruments that the Chinese and other foreigners hold. If you said it is our profligate Congress, go to the head of the class. If foreigners did not purchase so much of our debt, we would be worse off because the Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury would create an inflation and there would be higher interest rates.

I fear that the angst over trade deficits is simply a front for being against peaceful, voluntary trade among people of different nations.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He is also the author of Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? and Up from the Projects: An Autobiography. Williams participates in many debates and conferences, is a frequent public speaker and often gives testimony before both houses of Congress. This editorial was made available through Creator's Syndicate.

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.

9 Comments

  1. The trade “imbalance” fervor is groundwork to give popular backing for protective tarrifs, to give competitive advantage to some or many businesses extracting their plunder from the legislators who were supposed to be protecting us from such cheating.

  2. You can call equities and bonds capital goods if you wish, but they’re not. They are merely notional title to *future* capital (i.e., tangible) goods. *Real* capital goods are tangible goods (and *only* tangible goods) that produce a yield. Angst over the trade deficit is angst over the fact that we trade capital tangible goods (e.g., a manufacturing base) for non-capital tangible goods (e.g., consumer disposables). This isn’t anyone’s fault but our own (although it’s pretty sleazy for the rest of the world to take advantage of it), but nevertheless it’s still a very real problem. We might *feel* like we’re getting the better end of the bargain (because we get tangible items in exchange for various types of pieces of paper), but in truth, we’re not. We’re trading away our long-term viability for the sake of our short-term comfort. We’re eating our stock seed.

  3. China is using its trade trade surplus with many western nations, to buy up these nations farmland, and ship the produce straight back to China. Chinas behavior in the South China Sea shows that it will not tolerate these nations restricting these exports in case of a world food shortage – a distinct long term possibility. How myopic for these nations to ‘sell the farm.’

  4. Walters “I fear that the angst over trade deficits is simply a front for being
    against peaceful, voluntary trade among people of different nations.” is intellectually dishonest and manipulative. This is the secular version of “Satans attacking us cause were are the one true religion.’ Bad dog, bad dog, Walter.

  5. Not an argument. In what way is it manipulative or dishonest? I most certainly think it is a front for unwanted trading with different nations. The rhetoric spouted by Trump and Bernie on trade is simply an echo of angry voters who think their jobs are somehow being stolen by having access to cheaper goods.

  6. Why is it a problem, exactly? If I give you $20,000 for a car and you take those $20,000 and you invest them in capital goods, what business is it of mine exactly? You’ve received an exact amount of capital goods as I have non-capital goods.

  7. Well, tell me why, exactly, $20,000 is a capital good.

  8. Because you invested those $20,000 in capital.

  9. What happens if the butcher moves to China and now exports his pork and sells it to you for $50.00 instead of $100.00, but your Dad worked for the butcher, is unemployed, and you can’t buy any at all ?

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 9,000 articles online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Pin It on Pinterest