In January, I shared a short video about protectionism, which expanded on some analysis from a one-minute video from last year.
Today, here’s a short video explaining the trade deficit, which also expands on a one-minute video from last year.
Simply stated, trade deficits are largely irrelevant.
And since trade balances don’t matter, then it makes no sense to fight trade wars. Especially when protectionist-minded politicians inflict lots of casualties on their own people.
Given all the dramatic rhetoric in Washington about trade deficits – especially from President Trump, it’s worth pointing out that there’s nothing radical or unconventional about my analysis.
Kevin Williamson, for instance, made similar points when he explained the economics of trade deficits for National Review.
A trade deficit is just a bookkeeping entry, not a debt that has to be paid. Countries don’t trade — people do. Americans are no more harmed by the trade deficit with Germany than you are by your trade deficit with Kroger.
…trade deficits…are not really driven by consumer behavior… It’s true that many Americans prefer German cars and French wines — and cheap electronics and T-shirts made in China — but trade deficits mostly are the result of several other causes: macroeconomic factors such as tax policies and savings rates, the strength of a country’s currency, and, most important, its attractiveness to investors. …Far from being victimized by such trade, Americans are enriched by it.
Indeed, while more trade is associated with more prosperity, Kevin notes that there’s no link with trade balances.
Trade deficits are not a sign of economic trouble, and trade surpluses are not necessarily a sign of economic health. The last time the U.S. ran a trade surplus with the world was 1975, when our economy was in a shambles. Britain ran a trade deficit from Waterloo to the Great War, a century marking the height of its power, and it grew vastly wealthy.
Neil Irwin, writing for the New York Times, points out that a trade deficit is the same as a capital surplus.
A core idea that Donald J. Trump has embraced throughout his time in public life has been that the United States is losing in trade with the rest of the world, and that persistent trade deficits are evidence of this fact. …The vast majority of economists view it differently.
In this mainstream view, trade deficits are not inherently good or bad. …When a country runs a trade deficit, there is a countervailing force. …the flow of capital is the reverse of the flow of goods. And the trade deficit will be shaped not just by the mechanics of what products people in the two countries buy, but also by unrelated investment and savings decisions. The cause and effect goes both directions. …the flow of capital into the country — the inverse of the trade deficit — creates benefits that can be good for jobs, by encouraging more domestic investment.
Amen. I wrote back in 2017 about why it’s good when foreigners invest and create jobs in America.
Irwin also explains that the U.S. gets significant benefits because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency.
…the dollar isn’t used just in trade between the United States and other countries. The dollar is a global reserve currency, meaning that it is used around the world in transactions that have nothing to do with the United States. When a Malaysian company does business with a German company, in many cases it will do business in dollars; when wealthy people in Dubai or Singapore’s government investment fund want to sock away money, they do so in large part in dollar assets. That creates upward pressure on the dollar for reasons unrelated to trade flows between the United States and its partners. That, in turn, makes the dollar stronger…maintaining the global reserve currency creates…a lot of advantages. Lower interest rates and higher stock prices are among them.
For what it’s worth, politicians should ignore the trade deficit and focus instead on preserving the dollar’s special status as a reserve currency.
Let’s also review some commentary from Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe.
For centuries, economists have pointed out the destructive folly of tariffs and other trade barriers. Tirelessly they explain that a trade deficit is not a defeat, just as a shopper’s “deficit” with a department store is not a defeat. They implore policymakers
to see that trade restrictions always impose more costs on a country’s economy than any benefits they generate. …Nations don’t trade with each other. We speak as if they do out of habit and convenience, but it’s not true. The United States and Canada are not competing firms. America doesn’t buy steel from China, and China doesn’t buy soybeans from America. Rather, hundreds of individual American companies choose to buy steel from Chinese mills and fabricators, and hundreds of Chinese-owned firms make deals to buy soybeans from far-flung American growers.
He explains that trade is peaceful and productive cooperation.
…international trade occurs among countless sellers and buyers, all acting independently in their own best interest. …To those individuals, national trade deficits and surpluses are irrelevant. They aren’t competing — they’re cooperating. Buyers and sellers aren’t in conflict with each other, let alone with each other’s countries. On the contrary: By doing business together, traders create wealth and connections, knitting the world together in mutual interest, making the planet more harmonious.
Reminds me of Bastiat’s observation about trade and war.
But that’s a separate issue. The focus today is on the meaning (or lack thereof) of trade deficits.
Let’s close with a chart from the video (which I first shared exactly one year ago), which clearly shows that a trade deficit is simply the flip side of an investment surplus.
P.S. I’m still waiting for an anti-trade person to answer these questions I asked back in 2011.
P.P.S. And I also challenge anyone to defend Trump on this issue when compared to Reagan.
[…] A big problem is that politicians genuinely don’t understand that a “trade deficit” is automatically and necessarily offset by a capital surplus. Helping them to understand this […]
[…] A big problem is that politicians genuinely don’t understand that a “trade deficit” is automatically and necessarily offset by a capital surplus. Helping them to understand […]
[…] announced in February that the United States had a record trade deficit for 2021, I shared this video to help make the point that those trade numbers were that year’s “least important economic […]
[…] announced in February that the United States had a record trade deficit for 2021, I shared this video to help make the point that those trade numbers were that year’s “least important economic […]
[…] announced in February that the United States had a record trade deficit for 2021, I shared this video to help make the point that those trade numbers were that year’s “least important […]
[…] on the topic of trade, remember that dollars sent overseas as part of a procurement contract will come back to the United States, either to purchase American exports or as part of investment in the U.S. […]
[…] on the topic of trade, remember that dollars sent overseas as part of a procurement contract will come back to the United States, either to purchase American exports or as part of investment in the U.S. […]
[…] on the topic of trade, remember that dollars sent overseas as part of a procurement contract will come back to the United States, either to purchase American exports or as part of investment in the U.S. […]
[…] years ago, I unveiled this video to help explain that trade deficits are nothing to worry […]
[…] (and this is a sin of omission) is that there wasn’t enough time to explain why people shouldn’t fixate on the trade deficit – which is, after all, simply the flip side of a capital […]
[…] he didn’t realize that a “trade deficit” is largely an irrelevant statistic. Indeed, it’s merely the flip side of having a capital […]
[…] he didn’t realize that a “trade deficit” is largely an irrelevant statistic. Indeed, it’s merely the flip side of having a […]
[…] While I’m not a fan of the Gini coefficient, the so-called trade deficit will always be my least favorite […]
[…] While I’m not a fan of the Gini coefficient, the so-called trade deficit will always be my least favorite […]
[…] While I’m not a fan of the Gini coefficient, the so-called trade deficit will always be my least favorite […]
[…] is spot on. As I explained in my video on the trade deficit, people in richer, faster-growing countries can afford to buy more goods and services (regardless […]
[…] would get excited about my columns about topics such as “tax depreciation” and “trade data” and my missives about issues such as “budget concepts” and “cost-benefit […]
[…] year ago, I shared this video to explain why a “trade deficit” doesn’t matter, in large part because it is […]
[…] last year, I shared a video explaining that trade deficits generally don’t matter. I even suggested trade deficits might […]
[…] is right when he asserts that other nations have bad protectionist policies. Unfortunately, he wrongly thinks that reducing trade deficits somehow will address those bad policies. Instead, he should have […]
[…] opportunity on China trade – Because he foolishly focused on the bilateral trade deficit, Trump missed a great opportunity to pressure China to eliminate (or […]
[…] that any of that matters. Trump wrongly thinks the bilateral trade deficit (i.e., investment surplus) with China is the problem. So we’ve […]
[…] concern is that the president is too fixated on China’s largely irrelevant bilateral trade deficit. After all, that’s simply the flip side of America’s enormous investment surplus with […]
[…] because a richer China would buy more from America, thus appeasing folks like Trump who mistakenly fixate on the trade deficit. More important, economic liberalization presumably would mean less central […]
[…] and wrong about China and trade. He’s correct that China doesn’t play fair, but he mistakenly fixates on the trade deficit rather than going after China’s subsidies and […]
Not sure how you justify your graph of payments. Trade imbalance is real ad permanent payment deficit whereas capital investment is just varriant cant be fix..today they invest and tomorrow they can take money out of country and mostly with higher trade deficit country this can be result of frequent recession..please check data
[…] and protectionism – Speaking of trade, I argued that the trade deficit doesn’t matter and also suggested a sensible approach for dealing with […]
[…] part, they incorrectly think that a “trade deficit” is a problem that must be […]
[…] Starting with two reasons why there’s a trade deficit and why it doesn’t matter. […]
[…] net result of all these voluntary transactions is that America has a trade deficit, which is a meaningless figure. Basically the flip side of having a capital […]
[…] text of the argument. A four minute video […]
Dan- I disagree with you only on the following basis: Regulatory impact and defensive readiness. One at a time-
The regulatory impact of our laws versus those of other countries should be considered as far as tariffs are concerned. It is not right that we have oppressive regulations that essentially prevent us from manufacturing goods and then import those goods from countries where they do not have to perform under the same regulatory requirements. For instance EPA- are their citizens not as harmed by environmental issues as our own? If our environmental issues are killing people, do we not think those same environmental issues are not just as harmful to their citizens? Now if you maintain that our environmental regulations are too onerous, you may have a point, but that is not the question. So, I would maintain we should establish the base cost of those environmental regulations and charge a surtax on countries that do not adopt them. In this way, they would be given the choice of either taking on the cost themselves, or suffering the equivalent tax.
Secondly, our defensive readiness has been severely impacted by our lack of local manufacturing. In WW2, we were able to quickly convert auto factories, and machine shops into making the machines that we needed to fight a war against two oppressive regimes- Germany and Japan. Today, those two countries would quickly put us under the dirt. And if it was China- we buy most of our electronics from them. Do you think they would supply us with the necessary circuitry to fight a war against them? Our ramp-up time to begin manufacturing the necessary goods would be decades in a war that would likely last only a few years as we were forced into doping the bidding of our new masters. The shame of it is, they would beat us using technology that they essentially stole from us (not honoring our intellectual property laws) and then began to steal the world market from us.
So, I do support some tariffs that would protect the things that we would need to defend ourselves. I think any reasoning person would agree.
I would love to see a chart showing the relationship, if any, between trade deficits (or its inverse capital surplus) and GDP and wage growth. If trade deficits dont matter and are theoretically offset by capital surplus, then there should be no direct relationship between deficits and GDP or wage growth. It seems to me the aneamic GDP and wage growth in recent years in the US has some direct relationship with increased trade deficits, despite capital surpluses; just as increased trade surpluses in China seems to be directly related to increased GDP and wage growth.
@bratfalean, there is nothing to finance with a “trade deficit.” But you’re right to mention China’s central bank since they help finance the U.S. budget.
The problem is, who financing trade deficit ?? China Central Bank??