Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



The strange notion that U.S. trade is balanced
Howard Richman, 4/6/2012

In the April 5 Forbes Magazine (The Gold Standard and the Strange Notion of "Balanced Trade"), commentator Nathan Lewis argues that despite the fact that U.S. trade deficits were running at a $631 billion per year rate in January, despite the fact that the U.S. trade deficit with China alone was $282 billion per year in 2011, that there is no such thing as imbalanced trade.

He is correct that imbalanced trade is balanced by flows of savings in the opposite direction. He writes:

In actuality, all trade is balanced. Let’s say you are a businessman or investor. You want to trade something for something else. For example, you want to trade goods, services or assets for money (sell something), or you want to trade money for goods, services or assets (buy something).

Probably you are doing both of these at the same time, so in effect you are trading the things you sell for the things you buy, with the money acting as an intermediary. You probably end the process with roughly the same amount of money that you started. Money itself is an asset, of course.

OK Mr. Businessman, have these trades ever been “imbalanced”? Did you ever give goods and services and get nothing in return? At least not on purpose, right?

If that did occasionally happen, what you have in effect is an obligation for your counterparty to deliver something in the future, which is a type of asset, so even then you receive something in return. This would show up on the Current Assets portion of your balance sheet as an Accounts Receivable or something of that sort.

When trade is out-of-balance, the country exporting more than it imports does get something in return. The 16th century mercantilists got gold in return. The modern mercantilists get iou's, usually interest-paying bonds, in return. In effect, the modern mercantilists are lending money to their victims.

But Lewis shows his complete and utter lack of understanding of modern mercantilism when he sees nothing wrong with this bargain. If he wants to educate himself, we urge him to read our refereed-journal article on the subject (The Scaled Tariff: A Mechanism for Combating Mercantilism and Producing Balanced Trade).

Some economists think that these mercantilist loans benefit the victims. However, any benefit is just short term. At the same time that they give the victims more consumption, they take away investment opportunities in the victims' trading sectors. The result is that the victims get to live beyond their means for a short time, but they lose their industries.

As U. of Chicago economic historian Jacob Viner (16th Century mercantilism) and Chinese economist Heng-Fu Zou (modern mercantilism) made clear in their seminal writings, mercantilists sacrifice consumption in the present in order to get even more consumption and power in the future. We pointed out in our journal article that their policies produce the exact reciprocal effect in their victims: increased consumption in the present followed by decreased consumption and power in the future.

In the 1500s, the mercantilist countries of Europe used imbalanced trade to steal Spain's industries and power. By the end of the century, Spain had gone from the dominant power in the world to an economic has-been.

Since 1996, the mercantilist countries of Asia have been using imbalanced trade to steal U.S. industries and power. The decline in U.S. industrial investment has been quite significant. As shown in the graph below, as U.S. net exports (exports minus imports) have declined, U.S. net investment in manufacturing (fixed investment minus depreciation) has also declined:

The Dean of Peking University's School of International Studies writes that China's continuing economic victory over the United States proves the benefits of dictatorship over democracy. He attributes America's economic failures to the polarized domestic politics within the United States. But China's success and America's failure only prove that mercantilism is a successful strategy when its victims don't insist upon balanced trade.

Lewis is correct about one thing: the gold standard is not the solution to mercantilism. Even if the U.S. were to adopt the gold standard, other countries could still practice modern mercantilism by lending back to us the gold they receive from us through trade. The ideal solution would be for the victims to impose the WTO-legal scaled tariff that we recommend.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014
    Jul 2014
    Jun 2014
    May 2014
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012
    Oct 2012
    Sep 2012
    Aug 2012
    Jul 2012
    Jun 2012
    May 2012
    Apr 2012

    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade

    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]