Those of you
who can count will recognize that my last lesson was Lesson 16 and therefore
you were expecting Lesson 17 this time. Unfortunately I checked the records
and I never had a Lesson 1. I started with 2. Sheesh. So I am naming today’s
main plate Lesson 1.
This lesson
is about international trade. International trade is a lot like pho, the
Vietnamese soup. A lot of people really like it but almost no one knows how to
prepare it. Otherwise Campbell’s would have canned it already. We're similarly ignorant about international trade. When my fifth
grade teacher called me ignorant, I was very hurt. But later I realized
it did not mean I was terminally stupid – only that I didn’t know very
much. I was willing to go with that.
I fear that
our President-Elect is a bit ignorant about international trade. I also fear
that he will read this post and ask me to be Secretary of Doggie Bags, but the truth is that most of us are ignorant about international trade. So
no insult is intended.
One of my
professors once talked about international trade in terms of the tail that wagged
the dog. Unless you have a really small dog with an unusually large tail, you
expect the dog to wag its tail. So saying international trade is like the the tail wagging the dog ought to have your ears perked and your tail wagging.
What my professor meant is that there used to be a day when trade pretty much meant one thing –
countries selling goods to each other. "Goods" implies a tangible, e.g. a manufactured
product or an agricultural product. You can imagine a time when much of world
trade was coal or corn or clothing or cars. Countries loved to export goods because it expanded
their ability to sell. The more they sold, the more incomes and employment
grew.
So exporting goods was really cool. It was the big dog. You
were the coolest kid on the continent if you could export your goods to other
countries. That’s what many people think is what international trade is all about. Exports of goods! In 2015, the US exported $1.5 trillion of goods. Go team.
The
interesting thing about an export of goods is that a bunch of foreign currency
comes into world markets to pay for your goods. What do we do with all those foreign currencies? They are pretty but papering your walls with it can only go so far. Then some bright bulb thought, "Hey, with all this foreign
money, maybe I could buy things from other countries!" So export countries would
use the foreign currency to buy goods from other countries. Imports go hand in hand with exports. And more
important, imported goods can really help your country – especially if you
import things that help you to be happier and more productive.
So exports
of goods imply imports. While exports have an important role for national goals, imports of goods are also part of that equation. If a country imported only Twinkies, then maybe you might want to rethink the value of the imports. But
countries often import vital things they can’t get at home.
Nowadays
most of the world has discovered services. Services are intangibles which
essentially disappear once they are consumed. A float down the Rhine might cost
you $20k but on your way home all you have left are some nice memories and the JD bottle
you stole from your room fridge. Travel, tourism, entertainment,
communications, utilities, healthcare, etc. are services. In the US today, about 70% of what we spend goes
for services. So whatever I wrote above about goods adheres equally to services.
Services exports augment a nation’s output and employment; services imports
fill in what we don’t or shouldn’t make ourselves. In 2015, US services exports
were $743 billion.
When people subtract
national imports from exports, they are doing a legitimate operation. For
example, if exports are less than imports of goods and services, we call that negative number a
trade deficit. That causes frowns. We don’t like deficits. But in reality the
negative number is telling you only one thing directly – currency going out
exceeded currency coming in. What this
negative number tells you – for example, a deficit of goods and services of $500
billion in 2015 – is that $500 billion did not return to the US via imports of
goods and services. So what? It does NOT tell you that the US is in a half-billion dollar hole. In fact, what we know is that the nation got benefits
from the exports AND it got benefits from the imports. Adding them together, we got about $5 trillion of benefits
to the country in 2015.
I see you
are tiring. Give me 10 burpees. The best part is coming.
What we have left out of all this is a huge part of trade call financial stuff. Okay, there is a more technical term but for now remember that the trade deficit left $500 billion of dollars around the world that people did not want to use for US goods and services.
Notwithstanding wallpaper, foreigners who hold all those dollars can use that money and
more if they want to buy financial stuff in the USA. They can open up an
account at the IU Credit Union. They can
buy corporate or government bonds. They can buy shares of Apple or shares of an
index fund. They can also acquire or merge with Apple or the Crosstown Barber
Shop.
Wow. And
they are not limited by that $500 billion left over from the trade deficit. They can invest
all they want. And I don’t have to convince you that when foreigners buy US
assets, it is a good thing. It is good because US firms find it easier and less
costly to raise capital for investment. It is good because it lowers US interest
rates. It is good because it can infuse the latest technology and innovations into American
companies.
In 2015, foreigners
increased their ownership of US companies (what we call foreign direct
investment or FDI) by around $350 billion dollars. That’s not how much they owned –
that’s how much they INCREASED their ownership in that one year. They increased
FDI by around the same amount in 2014. In those two years, foreigners increased their
ownership of portfolios in America by about $736 billion. Money is gushing into
the USA. Between this portfolio investment and the FDI, we are talking about an increase of dollars buying US assets of more than $1.4 trillion.
Here’s the
point: Trade includes cross border transactions of goods, services, foreign direct investment, portfolio
investment, and more. Anyone who focuses on one of these to the exclusion of the
rest is not telling you the full story. International trade is great for the USA. Yes, we
have a trade deficit. But we also have a pile of very valuable imports of goods
and services flowing in and a waterfall of the world’s savings wanting to invest
here. Anyone who suggests that we should jeopardize the latter so as to remediate
the trade deficit in goods is not understanding the meaning of international trade.
A tariff on imports (Trump wants 45% on Mexican exports to the US) raises the dollar price to US consumers but lowers the price received by Mexican exporters. This is the likely benefit from a welfare view point: the United States is able to improve its terms of trade, that is the ratio of US export prices to US tariff-excluded imports prices. Any big country can do that because of the size effect. Small countries can't do it. It assumes that other countries, big ones, do not retaliate. If they do, the welfare benefit for the US would peter out or disappear altogether.
ReplyDeleteNow quantities. Clearly, import quantities fall for the US unless the demand is totally inelastic. The trade account improves, again assuming no retaliation. With retaliation, both US exports and imports decline and their difference in ambiguous. Employment at home can go either way depending on relative price elasticities and labor intensity of import-competing industry and export industry. The employment effect for the US may be positive but it is not a sure thing.
The big stuff is capital repatriation. With trillions of dollars brought back home by US multinationals, the capital account would swing to a big plus. Under flexible exchange rates, the current account must match with the opposite sign the net inflow of capital. In sum, the prediction of Trump is a bigger current-account deficit. Of course, Trump may blame other countries for this deficit unless someone in his entourage explains to him the basic macro identity.
Michele
Michele Fratianni
Professor Emeritus, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Bloomington, Indiana 47405 (USA) and Economics Department, Università Politecnica delle Marche
Dear Larry,
ReplyDeleteI find your lessons are very useful, as always! Reading this post reminds me why macroeconomics was one of my favorite subjects in my MBA time, and you were of course among my favorite teachers.
I like it that you bring phở in as an example, and feel flattered for our traditional food. I know how to make it, by the way!!
By the way, even if the POTUS is ignorant about international trade, doesn't he have a whole supporting team of experts that can explain him how to deal with this? I'm so confused about his policies now...
Hello Nhien,
DeleteThanks for your kind words. I hope all is going well for you. I think we are all a bit confused by President Trump's policies. Let's hope some of those advisers help him produce something that works. Only time will tell.
Thanks for your reply.
DeleteWould you mind if I ask for your opinion on this HBR article: https://hbr.org/2017/01/dont-cry-for-the-tpp
I don't agree with the author's viewpoint. But I don't know how to refute his arguments :( Or are these arguments valid?
Hope to hear from you!