It's Not the Budget Deficit; It's the Trade Deficit
Monday 22 February 2010
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: peasap)
The Wall-Street-financed crew that is pushing to gut Social Security and Medicare is used to playing fast and loose with facts and logic to advance their agenda. Unfortunately, many of the reporters who cover these issues have little knowledge of economics, so they are often suckered.
One of the favorite themes in the deficit hysteria is that foreigners hold close to half of the government's debt, with the evil Chinese looming especially large in this story. Holding up the foreign menace to advance a political agenda is a well-tested tactic in American politics, but its proven success doesn't make it any less reprehensible.
The reality is that, insofar as we are concerned about foreign ownership of US debt, then we should be talking about the trade deficit. This, is turn, brings us to a discussion of the value of the dollar, not the budget deficit. These topics get featured rarely, if ever, in the deficit hawks' rants.
The logic here is very simple and should be familiar to those with any training in economics. The extent to which foreigners are able to acquire ownership of US assets, regardless of whether it is government debt or private assets like stock and bonds, depends on the US trade deficit. The trade deficit gives them the dollars they need to buy these assets. A trade deficit means that the United States is sending more dollars abroad each year than are being used to buy US exports. This difference allows foreigners to buy up US assets.
This point is simple, but central. If the US government were running a $2 trillion budget deficit, but its trade was balanced, then foreigners could not be increasing their ownership of the government's debt, unless they were selling off holdings in US stocks, bonds, or other dollar-denominated assets.
Conversely, if the country was running a $2 trillion trade deficit, but the budget was balanced, so we had no annual budget deficit, foreigners could increase their share of ownership of the debt. They could use the $2 trillion that they were acquiring each year as a result of the trade deficit to buy up the government bonds that had been issued to finance the debt in prior years.
In short, if someone is concerned about foreign ownership of the US government debt, and not just looking to make cheap jingoistic appeals to advance their agenda, then they should be discussing the trade deficit, not the budget deficit. And, the issue here really is foreign ownership of US assets in general, not government debt. Foreign ownership of US assets represents claims on future income. The interest, dividends and profits from these assets will be paid out to foreigners, not people living in the United States.
Even if there is some particular reason to worry about the share of the government debt owned by foreigners, then the focus should still be US assets, more generally. Our financial markets are hugely liquid. If a foreign investor or government owned $1 trillion of US stock, corporate bonds or short-term dollar deposits, they could sell these assets tomorrow and buy $1 trillion in government bonds. There is zero reason that any serious person would ever be concerned specifically about the share of the government debt held by foreigners.
This brings us to the question of what determines the trade deficit. The simple answer is the value of the dollar. At any given level of GDP, the overwhelming determinant of our trade balance is the price of the dollar relative to other currencies. If the dollar rises by ten percent against other currencies, then it makes foreign goods cheaper for people in the United States. It also makes US exports more expensive to people living in other countries. A ten percent rise in the value of the dollar is comparable to imposing a ten percent tariff on all US exports and giving a ten percent subsidy to all imports.
The reason that the United States consistently runs large trade deficits is that its currency is overvalued. Unfortunately, the deficit hawks are too chicken-hearted ever to talk about the overvalued dollar since they get much of their funding from Wall Street, which likes a strong dollar.
So, we can look forward to a lot more cheap jingoism from the deficit hawk crowd about the menace of more foreign ownership of the government's debt. We can also expect that they will continue to ignore the real issue of an overvalued dollar that is making US goods uncompetitive in the world economy. The deficit hawks are right to say that the system is broken. But the best evidence is that their jingoism is being taken seriously.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Every TRICK in the book from
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 14:58 — Vic Anderson (not verified)Every TRICK in the book from the Wall Street-walkers for OUR wallets!
This is actually a perfect
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 15:13 — Anonymous (not verified)This is actually a perfect example of why the president is showing good timing in his slowly easing the US trade embargo on Cuba. A small nation, a stone's throw from our shores, in dire need of up to date cars, computers, household appliances, and farm equipment. Why let such a vast potential market only be utilized by our trade rivals?
Labor arbitrage is the main
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 17:10 — Mike in NYC (not verified)Labor arbitrage is the main reason for the US trade deficit. Unless you’re talking about high value-added goods, such as the Germans are known for, you can't compete with workers who make five to ten times less than you, no matter how much your currency depreciates.
I might add that foreign
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:27 — Anonymous (not verified)I might add that foreign workers do not pay Social Security or US Income taxes. That increases the US budget deficit.
Dean Baker has left out some
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:35 — USNorm (not verified)Dean Baker has left out some stuff.
Forget about all of the various theories of economics (except the hemline theory), and realize that the only everlasting, functional theory of economics is called "Doing Better By Taking Advantage of the Other Guy" (that's my name for it). Humans have been proving this theory for thousands of years, through boom and bust, and on a macroeconomic level as well as a micro economic level. It's the reason that the various other theories have worked for a while. When enough people believe the theory, they follow it in order to take advantage of others; when everyone believes the theory, everyone follows it, but can no longer take advantage of others.
Think about a home mortgage. It used to be that folks would strap themselves in order to get a large mortgage, knowing that inflation would gradually shrink the relative size of their debt, while the value of their house, and their salary, would at least keep pace with inflation. These folks thought that they were taking advantage of the banks, and that they were doing renters one better.
The second World War managed to increase our national debt from about $40 Billion to over $200 Billion (not adjusted for inflation). By 1970, the national debt had risen to almost $300 Billion, but it's percentage as compared to our gross domestic product had shrunk from over 90% to less than 40%. Think of that as trading up houses (with larger mortgages), while your income has been increasing faster than your mortgage.
Since about 1980 the percentage of our national debt as compared to GDP has been increasing steadily. From 1980 through 1992 our national debt increased fivefold (to about $3.5 Trillion), but it's percentage of GDP increased only to about 60%. From 1992 to 2000 our national debt increased to over $5.5 Trillion, but it's percentage of GDP actually decreased. Think of it this way: from 1980 to 1992 you were trading up houses with larger mortgages, and your income wasn't keeping up, but from 1992 to 2000 your income was again outpacing our mortgage.
Then came GW, increasing our national debt to over $10 Trillion, and increasing its percentage of GDP to over 80% (that last house and mortgage was a bit too much for our income).
Back to Dean Baker. It used to be that the banker who was funding our national debt was American (individuals, corporations and pension funds). Gradually, the banker changed. Today, about one third of the national debt is funded through borrowing from our own Social Security fund (I'm not happy about that, either). Another third is funded by historic American sources, and the remaining third is funded by foreign governments. That last part has been made possible by our trade deficits, and the undervalued dollar. So far, so good.
The traditional way of working ourselves out of debt, inflation, may not work this time around. At least not as we expect it to. That's partly because interest rates are being kept artificially low (in order to keep the size of the debt from ballooning even further). The foreign governments holding US debt are not doing so because they want us to take advantage of them. As inflation starts to take hold, China is going to start unloading US debt, but they also want to keep the Renminbi undervalued so that they can keep exporting. Japan (since December, the largest holder of US debt) may step in in exchange for US military protection. OPEC nations will hold up their end so long as US oil imports and the price of oil hold up. Slowly, ever so slowly, we've got to let interest rates creep up, we've got to let the dollar slide (at least in relation to the Renminbi), we've got to reduce the trade deficit and we've got to expand our GDP without giving it to the richest folks in the country (who are still taking advantage of the REAL Joe the Plumber, as well as the rest of the world).
Discussion of the debt and
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 13:15 — jruss (not verified)Discussion of the debt and GDP is based on the assumption that our economic activity can expand indefinitely. We believe this because it always has, at least during our nation’s history. Human population has expanded from 1 billion around 1820 to today’s 6.7 billion. This is exponential growth by any standards. This growth was fueled by extraction and burning of fossil fuels and the resulting human development. It has also been a period of unprecedented scientific advancement and unprecedented destruction caused by war and conflict. What’s this got to do with inflation, the overvalued dollar and foreign ownership? Plenty, if you can understand that the period of expansion we’ve become used to is ephemeral and can’t be considered normal in the context of human development over the ages. We will soon run up against limits to this condition when fossil fuels become rarer and more expensive. No combination of alternate “green” energy and nuclear energy will permit this expansion to continue. Concurrently, global climate change will impact human development and exacerbate the energy crunch. This climate change will proceed irrespective of any change in energy consumption. I applaud Dean Baker’s insight to the true nature of our economic malaise, I think it’s naive to believe true reform will bring us back to some state of normalcy with business expansion as we’ve experienced it thus far. --JR
MORE LIES AND DISTORTIONS
Fri, 02/26/2010 - 14:58 — Frances in California (not verified)MORE LIES AND DISTORTIONS FROM MIKE IN NYC - Somehow, his Day just isn't Made unless he can spout some idiotic notion slamming working folk . . . he'll go to the edge of the Galaxy to say (no proof whatsoever) that foreigners and unions are at fault; no matter what bubbleiscious meanderings Greenspan may have based poor advice upon; no matter what the reality of beyond-gross military spending is . . . No, you infant; labor arbitrage has very little to do with suffering brought on by the meltdown of the economy. It's far easier to prove that Bad Management is at fault. Get off this site and let smart adults like "USNorm" educate T/O readers.
To USNorm: I'm no expert,
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 01:15 — SummertimeChi (not verified)To USNorm:
I'm no expert, forgive me, but I'm confused about your prescription "we've got to let interest rates creep up, we've got to let the dollar slide"; wouldn't higher interest rates push the dollar's value up?
To all:
Is the US Dollar's near-monopoly as the global reserve currency also a factor in it's overvaluation? If so, I'd be very interested in learning the respective components of the near-monopoly and of trade partners' currency manipulations.
Either way, my take is that we're missing an opportunity. Instead of allowing our trade partners' subsidies (or our monopolist profits) to distort our economy towards consumption and away from production and investment, we should continue to borrow and make long-term, high-return investments (human and physical capital, R&D, new businesses, etc). Again, though, not my area of expertise, so this could be crazy talk.