Sudha Shenoy on the Trade Deficit

by Don Boudreaux on October 10, 2006

in Myths and Fallacies, Trade

Responding to this article in The Guardian, Sudha Shenoy has a wonderfully clarifying post, at Liberty & Power, on the U.S. current-account deficit.

Here’s an especially important passage:

As the Guardian article sees it, Americans have been recklessly
borrowing against their assets to buy consumer goods; hence the trade
deficit & capital inflow: ‘Consumers have been using their homes
like ATMs – borrowing against rising prices – but this cannot go on
forever. The US economy needs quite a prolonged period in which
consumer spending grows more slowly than the economy: that is the only
way that the trade deficit is going to be reduced.’

The facts: (a) The bulk of (private) US imports have always been production goods, not consumer goods

(b) the proportion of consumption in imports has been falling, i.e., the proportion of industrial inputs has been rising

(c) there has been no change in the overall composition of (private) imports for the last fifty years & more.

US imports (& exports) are made up of all sorts & types of
industrial goods; they run the entire gamut of industrial production.
In the classifications, industrial inputs can be identified fairly
clearly, but manufactured consumer goods are not always as clear. The identifiable groups of such consumer goods came to
somewhat over 23% of all imports in 2004. This proportion has in fact
been falling: it stood at 31% in 1951-55 & 1965, & at 26% in
1979. Correspondingly, production goods have made up a rising
proportion of imports.

(HT Bob Higgs.)

Comments

{ 6 comments }

Kevin October 10, 2006 at 10:55 pm

Good post, but I wish he'd move on past that 1993-ish way of "underlining" words. That's what HTML's for!

Bill Conerly October 11, 2006 at 12:11 pm

"Americans have been recklessly borrowing against their assets to buy consumer goods; hence the trade deficit & capital inflow."

Looking at the composition of imports does not refute that statement. We can be importing capital goods simply because we have shifted domestic production to consumer goods.

Refutation of the statement requires a look at how we're spending our money. How about this: Over the past 10 years, real consumer spending has grown at an annual rate of 3.7%; real business fixed investment has grown at 4.9% annual rate; real residential investment at 5.2% rate. We come to the same conclusion.

spencer October 11, 2006 at 2:05 pm

Supposedly we import and export what we do because that is what we have a comparative in.

It does not have anything to do with whether or not we are over or under consuming or investing.

Alexei McDonald October 12, 2006 at 4:23 am

Surely the rises in oil and other commodity prices would cause industrial imports to rise as a proportion of the whole, even if actual quantities of materials imported remained unchanged? If so, you can imagine a scenario where consumer imports were increasing modestly, but were counterbalanced in the figures by an oil price increase.

triticale October 12, 2006 at 5:00 am

Bad analogy. The convenience of an ATM may encourage reckless cash flow, but it only provides access to liquid funds.

Aaron Krowne October 12, 2006 at 10:21 am

Brad Setser has already dismantled these arguments:
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/151508

Give it up, Don. This is getting desperate… like trying to argue that global warming isn't happening. The fundamentals are pretty obvious here.

Previous post:

Next post: