Bilateral Trade Deficits

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.

Comments

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...

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...

A Quote from Parfit

Recently I wrote a little about ethicist Derek Parfit. I've been doing further research on him since, and will now describe his Big Picture as I've come to understand it. Parfit believes that the western world only started taking ethical philosophy seriously (as a domain separate from theology) around the time Nietzsche declared that God was dead. There are only three possibilities, in terms of the God/morality issue: 1) You believe that God exists and that His commands define morality 2) You deny that God exists and, like Nietzsche, infer from this that in the absence of commands there is no right or wrong, or 3) You deny that God exists yet persist in believing and attempting to discern right and wrong. From a certain point of view there could be a fourth category, for people who believe that God exists but that His existence is irrelevant to morality, He doesn't issue commands at all, etc. Still, from DP's perspective that sort of God ...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog