A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

We are regularly treated to ominous warnings about the "increase in the trade deficit" which for all I know, might very well have been increasing all throughout my life. Surely, something must be done, lest the Heavens fall, the angels open the Seventh Seal and the sky becomes as dark as sackcloth, no?

Well, not so fast. Don Boudreaux has some corrective comments regarding this favorite bogeyman economic commentary:

Consider that if Americans export lumber, sheetrock, and architectural blueprints to China so that people build a factory there, we're gleeful. "Wonderful!" we proclaim. "Exports are up and our trade deficit is down!"

But if those very same building materials are assembled by Americans into a factory situated and operated in, say, Utah and then bought by Chinese investors, we complain -- led today by the likes of Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham -- that "Something's wrong! Our trade deficit is higher!"

Truth is, though, that nothing economically important separates the first scenario from the second. In each case the world's stock of productive capital grows as Americans produce things for sale to foreigners. Those cases appear different from each other only because of the conventions of international commercial accounting, which records investments separately from imports and exports.

This accounting convention creates the false impression that an excess of imports over exports -- called a "trade deficit" -- is an ominous imbalance requiring corrective action. In fact, America's trade deficit is evidence, not of any imbalance, but of the happy fact that our economy is so strong and stable that foreigners invest here eagerly.

When foreigners sell things to Americans they earn dollars. If foreigners then spend all of those dollars on American exports, trade is "balanced." There's no trade deficit or surplus. But if foreigners instead invest some of those dollars in dollar-denominated assets -- say, by purchasing that factory in Utah, houses in Hawaii, or shares of Google -- they obviously must buy fewer American exports. So the trade deficit grows as investment in the U.S. rises.

Although dollars spent by foreigners on investments are not spent on items classified as U.S. exports, these dollars nevertheless are spent in the U.S. They raise the value of American corporations and real-estate, and improve American workers' productivity. In turn, those increases in asset values and productivity enhance Americans' current ability to buy goods and services -- perhaps the same goods and services that foreigners would have bought had they not invested their dollars here.

Isn't it better, though, if Americans do the investing and foreigners the consuming? No. What's important is to have lots of investment to increase worker productivity, which ultimately is the only way to raise our living standards. The nationality of investors is insignificant.

[. . .]

But doesn't a higher trade deficit mean that Americans are sinking more deeply into debt? Not at all. A trade deficit isn't debt. My young son, for example, received for Christmas several Chinese-made toys. These were bought with cash. If the Chinese toymakers invest their newly earned dollars in, say, that factory in Utah, the U.S. trade deficit rises but no debt is created. Neither I nor any other American owes any foreigner anything as a result of my purchase of toys from China and the corresponding Chinese purchase of equity in a company located in America.

[. . .]

Of course, part or all of the trade deficit can become debt. This happens whenever Americans borrow dollars from foreigners. As it happens, the most prodigious borrower today is Uncle Sam. But despite self-righteous accusations leveled at foreigners by the likes of Senators Schumer and Graham, the fact remains that U.S. government indebtedness is not caused by foreigners buying Uncle Sam's bonds, but by Congress spending beyond its means. If government debt is a problem, then Congress should stop borrowing. Complaints about the trade deficit are a red herring.

Of course, it is a red herring that will continue to be demagogued for some time; irresponsible commentary that makes appeals to economic nationalism without actual economics to back it up has a long shelf life, of course. It probably says something about the state of discourse regarding economic policy that this is so. But as Boudreaux points out, to equate the trade deficit with debt without looking and the details and underlying factors is to engage in analysis that either accidentally or purposefully misleads. And there is a lot of that analysis going around--something that shouldn't make any of us feel good.

(Cross posted on RedState.)