March 11, 2019

Trade Deficit Surges

Editor's note: We couldn’t be more proud of one of our teammates, Isaac Rose-Berman, who penned his first op-ed this week in USA Today: “How college students can bridge American divides: 'Study abroad' in Alabama or New York.” Please give it a read, and share far and wide!

“The Commerce Department said on Wednesday that a 12.4 percent jump in the goods deficit in December had contributed to the record $891.3 billion goods trade shortfall last year. The overall trade deficit surged 12.5 percent to $621.0 billion in 2018, the largest since 2008.” Reuters

Many on both sides agree that the increased trade deficit is not a sign of economic malaise, and, combined with other trends, is in fact an indicator that the economy is generally doing well:

“Imports grew faster than exports as the U.S. economy accelerated and much of the world slowed. The dollar grew stronger as capital flowed into the U.S., and the trade deficit grew to offset the larger capital inflows as it must by definition under the national income accounts… a larger trade deficit is a benign byproduct of a healthier American economy.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal

“True, at times of high unemployment deficits can cost us jobs. But in normal times they don’t reduce overall employment, nor do they make us poorer. On the contrary, other countries are sending us valuable goods and services, which we’re paying for with pieces of paper — paper that pays very low interest rates.”
Paul Krugman, New York Times

See past issues

From the Left

The left criticizes Trump for focusing on reducing trade deficits, and his overall approach to trade.

“Not only did the trade deficit increase, it increased exactly where Trump said it wouldn’t… [But] the problem here is not really with Trump’s administration. The president can have some effect on international trade, but most of it is driven by the massive U.S. economy: Who buys what, from where. The problem was really that Trump made campaign trail promises he would always have had a challenge in fulfilling.”
Philip Bump, Washington Post

“[Trump] has picked trade wars the world over, with friends and foes alike… These actions and threats have led to some predictable consequences. One is that U.S. companies have stocked up on some imported goods to beat the tariffs, which increases imports in the short run. Higher imports = bigger trade deficit. Another is that other countries have levied their own retaliatory tariffs on our own products — most famously, red-state goods such as soybeans and bourbon. So there has been less demand for U.S. exports. Lower exports also = bigger trade deficit.”
Catherine Rampell, Washington Post

“The administration hoped that threatening our trade partners with tariffs would force them to negotiate new pacts that gave the U.S. a leg up in global commerce. But the results have been underwhelming. The new-and-sort-of-improved NAFTA makes some important changes around the edges of the agreement, including key ones to international dispute settlement, but is widely regarded as little more than a rebranding effort…

“The agreement shaping up between China and the U.S. is looking like even more of a disappointment. In return for lowering tariffs, China would buy more U.S. agricultural goods and lower some barriers that keep U.S. companies from operating there. It would do nothing regarding issues like intellectual property theft that are of much greater concern to U.S. corporations. Trump started an unprecedented trade war, and all we’re gonna get are some lousy soybean sales.”
Jordan Weissmann, Slate

Some note that, “Had the United States taken a different approach to industrial (and antitrust) policy over the past four decades, the dollar might be weaker; our manufacturing base stronger; the financial industry smaller; investment less concentrated in large urban centers; and many ordinary Americans better off. And a sufficiently committed ruling party — which is to say, one willing to embrace aggressive state intervention, and to run roughshod over entrenched interests — could conceivably bend our economy back in that direction… [But Trump’s] populist producerism was never a serious economic doctrine. It was a PR strategy.”
Eric Levitz, New York Magazine

“Koch’s principles were not purely partisan. He supported same-sex marriage and abortion rights and believed in the value of free trade and humane immigration policies. He reviled the war on drugs and pushed, quite successfully, for criminal justice and prison reform…

“He gave $100 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital; $150 million to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; tens of millions to the Hospital for Special Surgery. Another $100 million went toward renovating the New York State Theater at Lincoln Center. Another $65 million, to restore the fountains and plaza outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Another $20 million, to the Museum of Natural History. Much of what Koch’s legacy was will be argued over for decades, as it should be. Some of it will deliver aid, comfort and enrichment to people who care not one whit about the name on the hospital wing or museum wall.”
Editorial Board, New York Daily News

Regarding the Cadillac tax, “high-premium employer-based plans raise the cost of health care for everyone by encouraging the overconsumption of expensive services. This means that even Medicare and Medicaid face higher prices. Quite aside from its benefits for the health-care market, the Cadillac tax would also have the effect of expanding the tax base and making the tax code more efficient. It would raise revenues by about $15 billion a year… Rather than killing or delaying the Cadillac tax, Democrats should be trying to make it operational. The tax would raise revenue, lower costs, increase the efficiency of the tax code and give the Obamacare individual market its best chance at success.”
Karl W. Smith, Bloomberg

“The two issues with which he is most often associated, support for a balanced budget and opposition to free trade, put him at odds with both of our major political parties. An old-fashioned, soft-spoken Southerner, he nevertheless held views on so-called ‘social issues’ that would be to the left of the mainstream of the Republican Party, both then and now. He was a fervent supporter of the Vietnam POW/MIA movement in the late '80s and early '90s, but he was not in any sense a hawk. Never mind 2003. Perot opposed the first war in Iraq in 1990… Perot's death should be mourned by all Americans who regret the fact that it is no longer possible to make reasoned, non-ideological arguments about questions of public import, and by the devolution of our political life into mindless partisan squabbling.”
Matthew Walther, The Week

From the Right

The right praises Trump’s policies for creating a strong economy.

From the Right

The right praises Trump’s policies for creating a strong economy.

“In 2018, the US imported about $2.6 billion in goods produced in other countries and we exported only about $1.7 billion of US goods produced here… That ‘unfavorable trade imbalance’ as the media frequently describes it, was actually a ‘favorable trade balance’ for the US viewed differently, since we benefited from a ‘net inflow of goods’ of nearly $1 trillion.”
Mark Perry, American Enterprise Institute

“The current growth in the U.S. trade deficit is simply due to Americans buying and selling more… [Moreover] America actually has a capital surplus, meaning companies and individuals around the world invest more money in the U.S. than we do abroad… When individuals have the freedom to buy and sell with the world—free of government intervention—businesses are forced to compete and innovate more, resulting in more choices in the marketplace…

“Rather than focusing on the trade deficit, Congress, the Trump administration, and even the media should focus more on the barriers imposed by governments (including the U.S.’) to limit trade freedom, what the real-life effects of those barriers are, and how we can fix them.”
Tori Whiting, Daily Signal

“President Trump promised to bring down the trade deficit, but it hit a 10-year high last year. But, given that we don't subscribe to the president's zero-sum approach to trade, our reaction to the news is to raise a glass to the Trump economy…

“Trump is right to care about the manufacturing industry. Manufacturing jobs from World War II until recent decades were excellent sources of wealth and stability for the middle class and working class… But manufacturing isn’t going away. As a share of the economy, manufacturing is stable. Last year saw a big uptick in our manufacturing and exports. The Federal Reserve reported Wednesday ‘slight-to-moderate’ manufacturing growth in almost all of the country… America’s $2.5 trillion in exports represents a 6.3 percent increase from 2017… We hope President Trump does not get tired of this winning.”
Editorial Board, Washington Examiner

Some argue that “a trade deficit reducing tariff would have to be much higher, perhaps even exceeding the 25 percent that was supposed to apply two months ago… The 10 percent [tariff] was not a tariff designed to reduce the trade deficit. It was the tariff designed to get China’s attention. Which it did, forcing China to cease its threats of retaliation in favor of negotiating with the U.S… Wednesday’s trade deficit figures strengthen the Trump administration’s hand because they demonstrate that China has much more at stake than the U.S. in keeping tariffs from escalating.”
John Carney, Breitbart

“Democrats spent more than two years talking about Russia, Russia, Russia seven days per week. It was their way of keeping the story in the news in the hopes that it would eventually bring down Trump. Now that the Russia thing has blown up in their faces, they need to trot out a new totem to raise against the President and the magic word is impeachment… This isn’t about actually impeaching Donald Trump. This is a strategy to have people hearing the word impeachment associated with Trump on a daily basis to give the impression that he’s going to crumble any day now. And they need to keep that going until next November.”
Jazz Shaw, Hot Air

“If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday—shutting down about 6 percent of world oil production—imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy. In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?… the nation does not want another war. How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see. John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.”
Patrick Buchanan, The American Conservative

“NBC and MSNBC embraced Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in the first debate of Democratic presidential candidates Wednesday night, treating her like the star of the show. The debate led off with Warren, who had a huge popularity advantage from the start… NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie started it off sounding more like Warren’s press secretary. ‘You have many plans – free college, free child care, government health care, cancelation of student debt, new taxes, new regulations, the breakup of major corporations,’ Guthrie said, before teeing up an economy question. Guthrie even used Warren’s plan to break up tech companies as the foundation for a question for Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey… the round-robin final comments also ended with Warren, as Maddow asked her for the ‘final, final statement.’ That let NBC bookend the entire debate with Warren and Warren.”
Dan Gainor, Fox News

President Trump should be happy. As much as Warren is articulate, obviously intelligent, and energetically supported by Democrats, she would also be far easier to defeat than Joe Biden… Considering Trump's economy, the president is well placed to defeat Warren.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner

A libertarian's take

“Why did Modi pick this moment to do something so radical? Violence in Kashmir had been trending downwards for the last year, after all. The main reason, besides President Donald Trump's alarming offer to mediate a settlement, is that he wanted a distraction from India's mounting economic woes. India's GDP growth dropped from over 8 percent to 5.8 percent over the last year, and it is widely expected to dip further. Just as ominous has been the crash in consumer demand. India's usual problem has been an insufficient supply to meet its voracious appetite for vehicles, cell phones, and other similar goods. But sales figures for all consumer goods have posted a precipitous decline, slamming businesses that are dramatically scaling back investments.”
Shikha Dalmia, Reason

On the bright side...

Mooove over, LTE: 'Me+Moo' uses 5G to connect you to real-life cow.
Android Police

Get troll-free political news.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.