The $1.4 Trillion Question – James Fallows – the Atlantic

Any economist will say that Americans have been living better than they should—which is by definition the case when a nation’s total consumption is greater than its total production, as America’s now is. Economists will also point out that, despite the glitter of China’s big cities and the rise of its billionaire class, China’s people have been living far worse than they could. That’s what it means when a nation consumes only half of what it produces, as China does.

Related posts:

1. Exchange rates and trade: a delicate balancing act, currently out of balance!
2. Exchange rates, currency manipulations, and the balance of trade
3. China’s “silver bullet” – a strong RMB could solve her biggest economic woes…

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 22  - “Balance of Payments” of my soon to be published textbook “Pearson Baccalaureate Economics”

If the total spending by a nation’s residents on goods and services imported from the rest of the world exceeds the revenues earned by the nation’s producers from the sale of exports to the rest of the world, the nation is likely experiencing a current account deficit. The situation is not at all uncommon among many of the world’s trading nations. The map belowmap  represents nations by their cumulative current account balances over the years 1980-2008. The red countries all accumulated current account deficits over the three decades, with the largest by far being the United States with a cumulative deficit of $7.3 trillion. The green countries are ones which have had a cumulative surplus in their current accounts, the largest surplus belonging to Japan at $2.7 trillion, followed by China at $1.5 trillion.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cumulative_Current_Account_Balance.png

The top ten current account deficit nations are represented below. It is obvious from this chart that the United States alone accounts for a larger current account deficit then the next nine countries combined. At $7.3 trillion dollars in deficits over 28 years, the US deficit surpasses Spain’s (at number 2) by 1,000 percent.

The consequences of a nation having a current account deficit are not immediately clear. It should be pointed out that it is debatable whether a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing, in fact. Below we will examine some of the facts about current account deficits, and we will conclude by evaluating the pros and cons for countries that run deficits in the (In macroeconomics): The period of time over which wages and prices are relatively inflexible. A fall in aggregate demand will lead to unemployment and recession in the short-run. Due to the inability of the nation's producers to reduce wages paid to worker, they must lay workers off to reduce costs as demand falls.');" onmouseout="tooltip.hide();">short-run and in the long-run.

Implications of persistent current account deficits: When a country like like those above experience deficits in the current account for year after year, there are some predictable consequences that may have adverse effects on the nation’s macroeconomy. These include currency depreciation, foreign ownership of domestic assets, higher interest rates and foreign indebtedness.

The effect of a current account deficit on the exchange rate: In the previous chapter you learned about the determinants of the exchange rate of a nation’s currency relative to another currency. One of the primary determinants of a currency’s exchange rate is the demand for the nation’s exports relative to the demand for imports from other countries. With this in mind, we can examine the likely effects of a current account deficit on a nation’s currency’s exchange rate. Additionally, we will see that under a floating exchange rate system, deficits in the current account should be automatically corrected due to adjustments in exchange rates.

When households and firms in one nation demand more of other countries’ output than the rest of the world demands of theirs, there is upward pressure on the value of trading partners’ currencies and downward pressure on the importing nation’s currency. In this way, a movement towards a current account deficit should cause the deficit country’s currency to weaken.

As an illustration, say that New Zealand’s imports from Japan begin to rise due to rising incomes in New Zealand and the corresponding increase in demand for imports. Assuming Japan’s demand for New Zealand’s output does not change, New Zealand will move towards a deficit in its current account and Japan towards a surplus. In the foreign exchange market, demand for Japanese yen will rise while the supply of NZ$ in Japan increases, as seen above, depreciating the NZ$.

The downward pressure on exchange rates resulting from an increase in a nation’s current account deficit should have a self-correcting effect on the trade imbalance. As the NZ$ weakens relative to its trading partners’ currencies, consumers in New Zealand will start to find imports more and more expensive, while consumers abroad will, over time, begin to find products from New Zealand cheaper. In this way, a flexible exchange rate system should, in the long-run, eliminate surpluses and deficits between nations in the current account. The persistence of global trade imbalances illustrated in the map above is evidence that in reality, the ability of flexible exchange rates to maintain balance in nations’ current accounts is quite limited.

Foreign ownership of domestic assets: By definition, the balance of payments must always equal zero. For this reason, a deficit in the current account must be offset by a surplus in the capital and financial accounts. If the money spent by a deficit country on goods from abroad ends up in the does not end up returning to the deficit country for the purchase of goods and services, it will be re-invested into the county through foreign acquisition of domestic real and financial assets, or held in reserve by surplus nations’ central banks.

Essentially, a country with a large current account deficit, since it cannot export enough goods and services to make up for its spending on imports, instead ends up “exporting ownership” of its financial and real assets. This could take the form of foreign direct investment in domestic firms, increased portfolio investment by foreigners in the domestic economy, and foreign ownership of domestic government debt, or the build up of foreign reserves of the deficit nation’s currency.

The effect on interest rates: A persistent deficit in the current account can have adverse effects on the interest rates and investment in the deficit country. As explained above, a current account deficit can put downward pressure on a nation’s exchange rate, which causes inflation in the deficit country as imported goods, services and raw materials become more expensive. In order to prevent massive currency depreciation, the country’s central bank may be forced to tighten the money supply and raise domestic interest rates to attract foreign investors and keep demand for the currency and the exchange rate stable. Additionally, since a current account deficit must be offset by a financial account surplus, the deficit country’s government may need to offer higher interest rates on government bonds to attract foreign investors. Higher borrowing rates for the government and the private sector can slow domestic investment and economic growth in the deficit nation.

Side note: While the interest rate effect of a large current account deficit should be negative (i.e. causing interest rates to rise in the deficit country), in recent years the country with the largest trade deficit, the United States, has actually experienced record low interest rates even while maintaining persistent current account deficits. This can be understood by examining by the macroeconomic conditions of the US and global economies, in which deflation posed a greater threat than inflation over the years 2008-2010. The fear of deflation combined with low confidence in the private sector among international investors has kept demand for US government bonds high even as the US trade deficit has grown, allowing the US government and central bank to keep interest rates low and continue to attract foreign investors.

Whereas under “normal” macroeconomic conditions a build up of US dollars among America’s trading partners would require the US to raise interest rates to create an incentive for foreign investors to re-invest that money into the US economy, in the environment of uncertainty and low confidence in the private sector that has prevailed over the last several years, America’s trading partners have been willing to finance its current account deficit at record low interest rates.

The effect on indebtedness: A large current account deficit is synonymous with a large financial account surplus. One source of credits in the financial account is foreign ownership of domestic government bonds (i.e. debt). When a central bank from another nation buys government bonds from a nation with which it has a large current account surplus, the deficit nation is essentially going into debt to the surplus nation. For instance, as of August 2010, the Chinese central bank held $868 billion of United States Treasury Securities (government bonds) on its balance sheet. In total, the amount of US debt owned by foreign nations in 2010 was $4.2 trillion, or around 50% of the country’s total national debt and 30% of its GDP.source: http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

On the one hand, foreign lending to a deficit nation is beneficial because it keeps demand for government bonds high and interest rates low, which allows the deficit country’s government to finance its budget without raising taxes on domestic households and firms. On the other hand, every dollar borrowed from a foreigner has to be repaid with interest. Interest payments on the national debt cost US taxpayers over $400 billion in 2010, making up around 10% of the federal budget. Nearly half of this went to foreign holders of US debt, meaning almost $200 billion of US taxpayer money was handed over to foreign interests, without adding a single dollar to aggregate demand in the US.

The opportunity cost of foreign owned national debt is the public goods and services that could have been provided with the money that instead is owed in interest to foreign creditors. If the US current account were more balanced, foreign countries like China would not have the massive reserves of US dollars to invest in government debt in the first place, and the taxpayer money going to pay interest on this debt could instead be invested in the domestic economy to promote economic growth and development.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why would a large current account deficit cause a nation’s currency to depreciate? How could a weaker currency automatically reduce a nation’s current account deficit?
2. Why should governments be concerned about a large trade deficit? What is one policy a government could implement to reduce a deficit in the current account?
3. Would a nation with a large trade deficit be better off without trade at all? Why or why not?
4. Discuss the validity of the following claim: “Americans buy tons of Chinese imports, but the Chinese don’t buy anything from America, this is why the US has such a huge trade deficit with China”. To what extent is this claim true or false?

Related posts:

1. Trade balances around the world
2. The Marshall-Lerner Condition, the J-curve, and the US trade deficit
3. Okay, a trade deficit is bad, what can we do about it?

U.S. Trade Gap Widens on Oil Imports – WSJ.com

Terms of trade is a term that is often misunderstood by IB Economics students. Simply put, a nation’s terms of trade refers to the relative price of a country’s exports to its imports.

When a country’s imports increase in price, while the value of its exports stays the same, the country’s terms of trade are said to deteriorate. As a nation experiences deteriorating terms of trade, it finds itself moving towards a deficit in its current account, meaning that expenditures on imports are growing more than income from exports, also called a trade deficit.

The United States has run trade deficits for most years since 1970. Since 2004 the US has annually spent over $600 billion MORE on imports than it earned from the sale of its exports. (Balance of trade data going back to 1960 can be found here).

Usually, when a country enters a recession, it would be expected that its balance of trade would improve, since households demand fewer imports and domestic inflation decreases making the country’s products more attractive to foreign households. In fact, in 2008, when the US entered its current recession, its trade deficit actually decreased. Recently, however, due to the weakness of many of its trading partners and a deterioration in terms of trade, America’s recession is accompanied by a deepening trade deficit:

The U.S. trade deficit widened for the first time in eight months during March, as the price and use of imported oil both climbed.

The U.S. deficit in international trade of goods and services increased to $27.58 billion from February’s revised $26.13 billion, the Commerce Department said Tuesday. Originally, the February deficit was estimated at $25.97 billion.

U.S. exports in March slipped by 2.4% to $123.62 billion from $126.63 billion as trading partners bought less consumer goods and cars from the U.S. U.S. imports fell at a lower rate, dropping 1.0% to $151.20 billion from February’s $152.76 billion

Discussion Questions:

1. How did rising oil prices lead to an increase in America’s trade deficit?
2. What determines demand for American exports in the rest of the world? Why is demand for American goods and services falling even as their prices decline due to deflation in the US?
3. Where does America get the money to buy hundreds of dollars more in imports than it sells in exports? What do foreigners do with all the US dollars they earn from their enormous trade surplus with the US?
4. Why doesn’t the US government simply place tariffs or quotas on imports to try and achieve more balanced trade with the rest of the world? Is this an appropriate response to a trade deficit?

Related posts:

1. Trade balances around the world
2. Exchange rates and trade: a delicate balancing act, currently out of balance!
3. The Marshall-Lerner Condition, the J-curve, and the US trade deficit

One of the greatest “ah-ha” moments in all of economics is when an economics’ student or citizen learns for the first time that every time a domestic buyer purchases a foreign product or import that those same U.S. dollars spent on the foreign product go to a U.S.-based company, not a foreign company. Yes, I am telling you that when you (or Wal-Mart) buy Chinese shirts, your same U.S. dollars spent quickly end up in the hands of, say, Apple, Microsoft, Garmin, or General Electric to increase U.S. employment, profits, and U.S. stock prices!

I decided to write this particular blog because of the fact that the recently passed $800 Billion U.S. stimulus bill has some “buy American” provisions within it. Based on an intuitive hunch, I believe that over 99% of adult Americans believe that these “protectionist” clauses somehow help our economy. Yes, the vast majority of U.S. adults believe that it is clearly more advantageous to “buy American” in order to keep the money or wealth within America in order to increase U.S. employment, profits, and U.S. stock prices. In true economic fact, however, if U.S. citizens “buy American” solely out of patriotism (and not because they think it is a superior product) they actually HURT America because the U.S. dollars spent out of patriotism on that American company are, therefore, unintentionally withheld from another more efficient and deserving American country via the “trade loop”.

Let me try to explain this “trade loop” in more detail so that I may actually be able to convince you of this amazing “180 degree” revelation: “Buy American” is Un-American

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy many shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying those same shirts from, say, a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China! The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the U.S. currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has initially traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a global positioning system (GPS) from FleetMatics out of Waverly, Massachusetts (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid FleetMatics (USA) $400 directly!

Yes, the economic “punch line” is that all spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent immediately back to the domestic nation increasing the domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living. (Note; this is also shown and reported in a nation’s balance of payments schedule if you are skeptical about what you are reading!)

And, yes, let’s not forget about that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Any good economy promotes competition and I am excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity and/or quality), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down. But remember, the key point, the $400 spent for the shirts went to Fleetmatics in Waverly, Massachusetts, in lieu of the Elon, North Carolina shirt manufacturer. If you would have “bought American” even though the Chinese shirts were preferable, you would have prevented the more effective U.S. business in Waverly from getting your U.S. dollars by giving them to the less efficient Elon manufacturer. In short, you would have contributed to American inefficiency and slowing productivity, hurting our country! And that is un-American!

Now, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy that GPS system from FleetMatics for $400. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received form U.S. import purchases. Said another way, China is not buying as many GPS’ as the US is buying shirts and, of course, we call that phenomenon the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really not as big a problem as most people think! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and be forced to use those U.S. dollars to buy that GPS system or build more plants to employ more Americans!

In summary, when citizens of any country in the world buy the product that is best for them based on a combination of quality and price, they will be taking the most patriotic action possible to help their own country they love so much! If a domestic citizen sees the foreign product as a better alternative to the domestic product, buy it! Your money spent will immediately find its way back through the “trade loop” to another business within your country!

Of course, this is why all economists from around the world know that international trade, and not protectionism, helps a country’s standard of living and promotes efficiency and rising standard of livings!

Related posts:

1. International Trade Made Simple
2. Economics: The 180 Degree Science!
3. Dominican Republic struggles to find its “comparative advantage” as it faces new competition from Asia

What’s sinking the dollar? – November 26, 2007

The US dollar has continued its downward spiral against the currencies of many of its trading partners. Today an American wanting to exchange his or her dollar for a Euro would have to fork over $1.46; for a British Pound, $2.07, and for a Canadian dollar, $1.05! It’s been 35 years since the Canadian dollar was even near parity ($1US = $1CA)! But what are the real forces behind this continually sinking dollar? This article lays it out straight and clear:

The forces behind the dollar’s weakening have been building for years but didn’t have much effect until recently. Most fundamentally, we Americans have been living beyond our means, buying more from the rest of the world than the world buys from us (that’s the trade deficit); to do that, we have to give foreigners claims on our assets in the form of government bonds and corporate bonds, or sometimes the assets themselves. A country as rich as America can do that for a long time, but eventually the world ends up holding more dollars than there is dollar-denominated stuff they want to buy, so they start offloading dollars. They also worry that any country with loads of debt–even the U.S.–may be tempted to inflate its currency, and that fear reduces its value.

Since the U.S. has been running huge trade deficits the past several years–about $700 billion this year–the stage has long been set for the dollar to drop. What shoved it over the edge was the subprime mess and worries about a U.S. economic downturn. If the economy looks to be slowing down, investors bail out of U.S. assets and turn to investments that must be bought with other currencies. When the Fed tries to perk up the economy by cutting interest rates, as it has done twice recently, it makes the dollar even less attractive because investors can get better rates in other currencies, such as the euro.

What makes investors really nervous is that the trend could become self-reinforcing. A Chinese government official sparked a particularly sharp selloff of the dollar when he said his government would be moving its reserves out of weak currencies and into strong ones–goodbye, dollar; hello, euro. Since China holds more than $1 trillion, its actions could move markets, pushing the dollar down further, prompting dollar holders to shift out of it further, and so on.

Even if we avoid that scenario, more dollar weakness is probably ahead, at least relative to China’s yuan and other currencies of developing nations. As Alan Greenspan points out, when their living standards are rising faster than ours, their currencies will probably appreciate vs. ours. Remember, he says, that the Japanese yen was once 300 to the dollar and eventually strengthened to below 100 (it’s now around 113). The trend continues: In just the past year the dollar has weakened 13% vs. the Indian rupee and 11% vs. the Colombian peso, for example.

By the way, Warren Buffett told us all this would happen. In mid 2002, for the first time in his life, he began buying foreign currencies, thus betting against the dollar. He explained his reasons most extensively in a FORTUNE article he wrote (Nov. 10, 2003; see fortune.com). The main factor he cited, the trade deficit, is much worse now. For a year or two after the article, his bet seemed to be a loser. But now, as usual, he looks prescient.

Discuss…

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. What’s got the dollar so weak in the knees?
2. Does the weak dollar help US manufacturers?
3. The US dollar’s decline in value may cause more harm than good for the US economy

Asia Sentinel – A Falling Dollar Does Nobody Any Good

Many economists hail the decline in value of the US dollar as a boon to the American economy. It may sound counter-intuitive, but economic theory predicts that when a currency depreciates relative to other currencies, this could actually be good for the country’s economy? Why, you ask? Let’s consider an example:

In the last four months the value of a dollar in terms of euros has gone from 0.75 Euro cents to 0.69 Euro cents. For Europeans, that means that dollars are cheaper now than they were four months ago, therefore American goods are cheaper now than four months ago. Cheaper American products should mean more business for American companies as Europeans demand more of their stuff. Good for business, right? In the US, aggregate demand will shift out, unemployment should fall, and the price level should rise as more foreigners demand more American products. But what impact does the weaker dollar have on Americans?

What’s the impact of the falling dollar on American consumers? Let’s look at the situation from their perspective. To Americans, while their dollars have gotten cheaper, the euro has gotten more expensive. Since June one euro has gone from costing Americans $1.32 to 1.43 today. In other words, one euro’s worth of European made products has gotten that much more expensive for American consumers. The higher prices of imports from Europe combine with the higher prices of products made in the United States that resulted from greater European demand for American products to drive the American price level higher still. Inflation is a serious concern as a nation’s currency depreciates against those of its trading partners.

Besides the immediate impact on the balance of trade between America and its trading partners, there are several less obvious outcomes of a weaker dollar. As discussed in the article, these include:

Rising living standards overseas:

“The collapse of the dollar would be great for Asian consumers, who would see sharp rises in their standards of living as their wages and savings gain purchasing power, while American workers and landlords see a corresponding decline in the real values of their pay and rent.”

Increasing costs for American manufacturers:

“Too often overlooked is how the weakening dollar also works to increase costs for US manufacturers. A falling dollar raises the costs of raw materials such as oil and metals, while simultaneously decreasing the relative costs that foreign competitors pay for the same supplies.”

Higher prices of foreign made components used in American factories:

“Perhaps even more important will be the prices of foreign-made components used in American factories… as the dollar loses value, the costs of importing all of the components will rise, making the finished product more expensive for Americans.”

Higher interest rates in the US:

“Because a falling dollar diminishes the global appeal of dollar-denominated debt, U.S. interest rates will inevitably rise, resulting in increasing capital costs for domestic manufacturers.”

Higher nominal wages and rents in the US (resulting in firms moving more jobs overseas where wages and rents are lower):

“…as a weaker dollar forces up domestic consumer prices, American workers, suffering from declining real incomes, will ultimately press their employers for more generous pay raises… Similarly, landlords will look to raise rents to make up for the falling purchasing power of their rental income.”

Less tax revenue, potentially greater budget deficits and debt (or higher taxes on Americans):

“…as rising interest rates and consumer prices combine to exacerbate the severity of the coming recession, federal tax receipts will inevitably decline, causing the budget deficit to swell anew.”

This article served as a wake-up call to me personally, who, like many economists, tend to think in terms of ceteris paribus, or all things equal… In the case of a weakening dollar, it’s easy to look at the immediate impact on the US balance of trade, which by all accounts has been skewed unfavorably against American firms for decades, as growth in imports from the rest of the world have far outpaced growth in exports to the rest of the world. A weaker dollar may help achieve a more balanced current account between America and its trading partners, but at what cost to American consumers and, potentially, its producers as well?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. Exports, good – Imports, ALSO GOOD!
2. Stagflation – a blast from the past could mean trouble for US economy
3. The Great Wealth of China: Shaping the World Economy

US dollar plummets against euro as ECB rate hike becomes likely — Shanghai Daily | 上海日报 — English Window to China News

“THE US dollar has dropped to a 27-month low against the euro… The United States currency also tumbled to its weakest level against the British pound in 26 years”

What’s happening to the US dollar? The article claims that “interest rate differentials” are causing the weakening of the dollar relative to the Euro and the Pound. How can this be explained? First of all, why is the US Fed predicted to cut rates in the near future?

“The dollar’s losses last week accelerated after a US government report showed that consumer prices excluding energy and food moderated last month. That contrasted with reports from the United Kingdom and New Zealand indicating accelerating price pressure.”

What’s the connection between slowing inflation in the US, accelerating inflation in Europe, falling and rising interest rates, and the exchange rate? At this point in the AP course, you should be able to explain all of these connections.

How can we explain how the following economic trends lead to a weakening of the dollar and a strengthening of European currencies?

“The yield advantage of 10-year Treasury notes over similar-maturity German bunds dropped to 0.47 percentage point last week, the lowest since November 2004. A narrowing yield gap dims the allure of dollar-denominated assets.”

“The economy in the euro zone will grow 2.3 percent this year, beating the 2.2 percent estimate for the US…”

“ECB council member Axel Weber told Handelsblatt newspaper that an ‘extremely positive’ economic outlook meant the bank can’t signal it’s finished raising rates.”

If you can read, understand and explain this article right now, they you probably understand most what what you need to understand from Chapter 38. Let’s hear your comments, folks!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. Reflections on the weak dollar
2. Does the weak dollar help US manufacturers?
3. The US dollar’s decline in value may cause more harm than good for the US economy