Here’s a letter to the New York Times:

C. Fred Bergsten claims that eliminating America’s trade deficit is a costless way to boost employment in America (“An Overlooked Way to Create Jobs ^[1],” Sept. 29).  He’s mistaken.  Among his several errors is his illegitimate assumption that all dollars that foreigners don’t spend on American exports remain idle, effectively withdrawn from circulation.

Consider two cases.  First, Americans buy $1 million worth of textile imports from the Chinese who then buy $1 million worth of pharmaceutical exports from Americans.  The result: balanced trade.

Second case: Americans buy $1 million worth of textile imports from the Chinese who then buy $1 million worth of land in Texas.  The American seller of the land immediately spends this $1 million on American-made pharmaceuticals.  (Perhaps the Texan is opening a pharmacy.)  The result: a $1 million U.S. trade deficit.

In both cases, Americans producers sell an additional $1 million worth of output as a consequence of Americans importing $1 million worth of goods.  So – although America runs a trade deficit only in the second case – the employment effects in both cases are identical.

Such an example, being entirely plausible, is sufficient to prove the absence of any necessary negative connection between trade deficits and employment ^[2].

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Be Sociable, Share!

• ^[3]
• ^[4]
• ^[5]
• ^[6]
• ^[7]

• ^[8]
• ^[9]
• ^[10]
• ^[11]

Comments

comments