Skip to main content

Bilateral Trade Deficits

Image result for free trade

Here’s a key point about trade. A bilateral trade deficit is NEVER by itself a policy issue. Consider a microeconomic parallel. I have a severe bilateral trade deficit with my barber. I’m a content provider for websites and my barber doesn’t even HAVE a website. He has no need for my services at all. But I regularly need my hair cut. So the trade between us is one way. I pay him cash, he provides a service to me.
Is this alarming? No. Why not? First, because I do need the hair cuts and my barber does a good job of providing them. Second, because the price he charges is fair. If it weren’t fair, there would be other barbers in the world to whom I could turn. Third, because trying to cut my own hair would be an unproductive waste of my time — time better spent preparing content for websites.
Likewise, there is nothing alarming if the US sells little to the People's Republic of China, and China sells a lot of stuff to us.  In that case, China is the barber. 
Now, if I have a trade deficit against the whole world, there is some reason for concern. It means I am getting services done for me for which I can’t pay on the basis of any productive activity of my own. A serious problem. But (1) this doesn’t justify railing about any bilateral relationship and (2) surely the best available solution to that problem lies in improving my own productivity, raising the amount of money I get from the rest of the world by exporting to it. Not reducing or resenting the imports and trying to cut my own hair!
This is simple stuff. But Trump has no clue of any of it. And that is potentially disastrous.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more