Donald Trump's administration this week announced new tariffs on solar panels and washing machines. It has hinted at more to come. The rationale for these measures is that they'll reduce American trade deficits—in particular, the widening deficit with China—and thus benefit the U.S. economy. Rather than take Washington’s assumptions at face value, however, we must consider how protectionism affects capital flows.
Policy makers largely ignore the indirect impact of trade intervention on capital. But what happens to capital is ultimately what will determine how these measures affect the economy.
Consider the case with China. If protectionist measures did in fact cause China's trade surplus with the U.S. to drop, there are broadly three ways it could happen. Chinese investment flows to the U.S. could remain unchanged. They could drop. Or they could rise.
In the first case, America's trade deficit with the world would remain unchanged as a portion of its deficit with China would simply shift to other countries. This may seem counter-intuitive, but if Chinese exporters sent as much capital to the U.S. as before, the resulting effects on the economy—on the dollar, interest rates, lending standards and so on—would keep the deficit as high as ever, with no change in U.S. debt or unemployment.
In the second case, if protectionist measures disrupted China's capital exports, its capital deficit and trade surplus would then decline, as would the U.S. capital surplus and trade deficit. This would result in a reduction in America's overall trade deficit, underpinned either by lower debt or lower unemployment.
In the third case, finally, protectionist actions might result in increased Chinese capital exports to the U.S. In that event, even as China’s trade surplus with the U.S. fell, America's deficit with other countries would rise by even more, increasing its overall trade deficit, underpinned this time either by rising debt or rising unemployment.
Much of the debate over Trump's trade policy seems to miss the point that the economic effects of any trade measure depend on how it affects capital. This is because policy makers assume that capital flows simply respond to changes in trade. Although this was true for most of modern history, it no longer is—and hasn't been for more than five decades.
For centuries, capital flows were quite small and consisted mainly of trade finance, with the capital account adjusting automatically to changes in the trade account. That made predicting the consequences of protectionist measures easy: They would reduce the bilateral trade deficit and thus the overall deficit.
But it no longer works that way. Global capital flows are now huge and driven mainly by the independent decisions of millions of investors in the U.S. and abroad. Because the capital and trade accounts must still balance to zero, however, the direct impact of intervention is usually subsumed under the indirect effects on capital flows.
So what are the consequences for current policy?
Protectionist measures may indeed directly affect bilateral trade. But if America's capital inflows rise, so must its overall trade deficit. This is because higher inflows will cause adjustments in the economy—potentially including lower credit card rates, a stronger dollar, weaker lending standards, higher unemployment and surging asset markets—that cumulatively cause savings to drop and force the overall deficit to rise, even as the deficit with China falls.
Why might protectionist measures increase capital inflows into the U.S.? If they increased financial and economic uncertainty in China, they could cause Chinese capital flight to increase sharply. By raising American growth prospects, they could also boost capital inflows into the U.S.
What's important to recognize is that the deep trade imbalances afflicting the U.S. in recent years mainly reflect the impunity with which other countries exploit access to its capital account. Capital markets in the U.S. are deep, flexible and completely open, making it easy for countries that aim to run trade surpluses to park their excess savings there.
As a result, the U.S. is forced to absorb roughly half the world's excess savings. Even though American businesses are sated with cheap capital, and sit on hoards of unused cash, money is still pouring into the U.S. and forcing its capital account into surplus. It thus has no choice but to run a trade deficit.
Rather than intervene directly, only to undermine global trade and worsen these imbalances, Washington must address the role the U.S. plays in absorbing global capital. This is the only way to resolve American trade deficits.
Comments(3)
"If they increased financial and economic uncertainty in China, they could cause Chinese capital flight to increase sharply. " This. Obviously, it's not about the trade surplus. If the U.S.A. sees country X as an adversary it would be reasonable to expect that it would choose not to support this adversary X. Wouldn't it be wise for the U.S.A. to channel this trade surplus to a friendly Y?
"if America's capital inflows rise, so must its overall trade deficit. This is because higher inflows will cause adjustments in the economy—potentially including lower credit card rates, a stronger dollar, weaker lending standards, higher unemployment and surging asset markets" - Could you please provide us the explanation of a rising unemployment in the US in the case of a stronger US$? It would obviously lower employment in the tradable goods sector, but the rising external savings would be reallocated, mostly in services, that employ more people. Thank you.
Vincent, how do you know that because your dollar will go farther on the back of cheaper imported goods, you can and will reallocate that extra money to local services and boost employment? You might just use those savings to buy more imported goods? Right? The unemployed people will seek employment, maybe in the local services and bring down wages and wage growth? Maybe one of the unemployed would offer to do your job for less and put you out on the street. Some of the so-called savings just might be to someone rich, wealthy, and he doesn't spend the saving. He saves it. Are human and physical resources freed up to be more profitably used elsewhere or have they been idled because the wealthy and powerful in another country have subjugated and subordinated their population more, share less of the value their people produce than here. You know. Beggar thy Neighbor. The w & p drive down wages so the population can't buy all the goods produced in their country. The w & p want the savings. They can export the savings and build up claims against another country. The w & p see no profit to sharing. They'd rather build up wealth in another country. What would they possibly gain by allowing their people to work more for themselves? Sharing more in the very things they produce?
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.