Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Walter E. Williams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Trade Deficits: Good or Bad?
by Walter E. Williams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Two recent articles ought to give pause to current political and journalistic ignorance, perhaps demagoguery, about our international trade deficit. In a December Wall Street Journal article titled "Embrace the Deficit," Bear Stearns' chief economist David Malpass lays additional waste to predictions of gloom and doom associated with our trade deficit.

Since 2001, our economy has created 9.3 million new jobs, compared with 360,000 in Japan and 1.1 million in the euro zone (European Union countries that have adopted the euro), excluding Spain. Japan and euro zone countries had trade surpluses, while we had large and increasing trade deficits. Mr. Malpass says that both Spain and the U.K., like the U.S., ran trade deficits, but they created 3.6 and 1.3 million new jobs, respectively. Moreover, wages rose in the U.S., Spain and the U.K.

Professor Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's Economics Department, wrote "If Trade Surpluses Are So Great, the 1930s Should Have Been a Booming Decade" (www.cafehayek.com). According to data he found at the National Bureau of Economic Research's "Macrohistory Database", it turns out that the U.S. ran a trade surplus in nine of the 10 years of the Great Depression, with 1936 being the lone exception.

During those 10 years, we had a significant trade surplus, with exports totaling $26.05 billion and imports totaling only $21.13 billion. So what do trade surpluses during a depression and trade deficits during an economic boom prove, considering we've had trade deficits for most of our history? Professor Boudreaux says they prove absolutely nothing. Economies are far too complex to draw simplistic causal connections between trade deficits and surpluses and economic welfare and growth.

Despite all the criticism from abroad and the doom-mongers at home, the world finds our economy attractive. Just as we've been chomping at the bit to buy foreign goods and services, foreigners have been chomping at the bit to invest trillions of dollars in the U.S. Mr. Malpass says our 10-year government bonds yield 4.6 percent per year compared with Japan's 1.6 percent; our government debt is 38 percent of GDP versus 86 percent in Japan; and while Europe's debt to GDP ratio is not as extreme as Japan's, it's not nearly as favorable as ours.

Here's a smell test. Pretend you're a man from Mars knowing absolutely nothing about Earth and you're looking for a nice place to land. You find out that there's one country, say, country A, where earthlings from other countries voluntarily invest and entrust trillions of dollars of their hard earnings. There are other countries where they're not nearly as willing to make the same investment. Which one of those countries would you deem the most prosperous and with the greatest growth prospects? You'd pick country A, which turns out to be the United States. As such, you'd be just like most of the world's population who, if free to do so, would invest and live in the U.S.

The late Professor Milton Friedman said, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." Some people justify their calls for protectionism by claiming that they're for free trade but fair trade. That's nonsense. Think about it: When I purchased my Lexus from a Japanese producer, through an intermediary, I received what I wanted. The Japanese producer received what he wanted. In my book, that's a fair trade.

Of course, an American auto producer, from whom I didn't purchase my car, might whine that it was unfair. He would like Congress to impose import tariffs and quotas to make Japanese-produced cars less attractive and available in the hopes that I'd buy an American-produced car. In my book, that would be unfair.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Emulating Rome in America?

Small, Rural farming communities, such as Cortez, Colorado are often more stable and the pace of life slower. Although in about 1300 A.D., some toltecs migrated North from the declining Aztec empire and wrecked havoc on residents of Chaco Canyon National Monument, New Mexico. Toltecs murdered and alledgedly ate local residents of the 'Great Houses'. (ref: University of Utah research paper "Man Corn". The author documented chemical evidence of cannibalism committed by toltecs by chemically locating deposits of myoglobin, a protein only found in HUMAN skeletal muscle).

Like today, it was a time of great change and upheaval. Interpreters at Mesa Verde National Park once told me one theory about what contributed to the decline and disappearance of the local puebloans (Anasazi) was a prolonged drought which adversely affected agricultural production of their main food: corn.

It is possible that despite the outward appearance of a bucolic, quiet farming community that beneath it all lies the timeless cycles of climate change and decline (of civilizations). As in deserts of the Middle East, the sands of time are driven by the wind and relentlessly shifting around. Human players are only ephemeral. In the longest of terms, only the desert remains.

The growing trend of mass-migration worldwide toward "mega-cities" is one prominant indicator as to where we possibly are as a civilization on our timeline. The Anasazi Indians left us some important clues for interpretation. According to Park Service interpreters at Mesa Verde National Park, the end of the cliff dwellers came within a relatively short time ( perhaps only one or two generations) of their attaining the highest level of cultural and technological development (the "Basketweaver" Period). Whatever precipitated their decline happened very rapidly.

In my mind back then (1300 A.D.), only famine, disease,and/or war could cause such a swift dissapearance of so many people. One wonders at times if our current circumstances resemble "Indian Summer", a tranquil period between the long days and heat of Summer and the shorter, colder days of Winter.

Like dormant seeds, these timeless, unending cycles are awaiting the rains needed to germinate and emerge, when the time is right. For America, and the somewhat different Roman Empire, decline was a prevailing attitude at first. Like aging and physical decline, all the bodily systems are in slow deterioration. When death finally comes one day (always a total surprise), it often is not one single cause (although it can be). Certainly not Global Warming! Typically, a failure of several bodily systems occurs. Such as it was with Rome, and quite possibly America (and the Western Democracies) along with her.

History, like economics, is very complex and it is extremely hard to spot applicable analogies. Few in today's society appreciate the the results. What our culture most values today is "PER-SON-AL-ITY" and con-form-ity. (I call it the High-School mentality)

Like the Romans, the majority of Americans prefer luxury ( a heated office w/swivel chair) and avoid hardship or difficult ideas. The overall capability is lacking. This is one interpretation of why the public no longer supports foreign wars of protracted duration.

By necessity, rural inhabitants are still hardy and more able to handle quite a bit of physical discomfort. This is especially true in third-world countries. Afgan warlords, with American aid, handily whipped the Soviet Army. (Without a first class military, about all the Soviets can do anymore is poison an occasional gadfly or intellectual with a radioactive isotope).

Equally dangerous to an empire with a state-of-the-art military is a former empire which has retained in leadership circles the habits and attitudes of empire. Empire requires a capable military and a willingness (attitude) to use it without restriction. America no longer demonstrates these attitudes.

An old want ad for the Forest Service, (circa. 1920) read: "Wanted, applicants who can ride, fight fires, and build cabins. No invalids need apply" . Today, that kind of recruiting would be illegal and actionable in civil court, as well. Hence, it reflects cultural attitudes of a totally different era in America.

Today's liberal policies (immigration, etc.) are indictative of post-empire. Clearly, America appears to be entering a transition of some sort. I will suggest we are in decline, at least as a sovereign nation.

This is one possible explanation of why foreigners are piling-in. They are leaving poorer rural areas and coming to America (the cities).

This is why we are more vulnerable than ever as a society to epidemics, terrorism, or any kind of disaster you can imagine. Crowding is inherently unhealthy. The most strategic step we could ever take to keep us safer from whatever threat would be to disperse the population away from the largest coastal cities. Government incentives could augment such a domestic policy.

Land is only one store of labor.
Matthew writes:

“Would it be harmful if all of our companies were bought by foreign corporations? …They'll just get rid of most of GM's American executives. Since I couldn't care less about them, I'll only care because when they're out of work, they aren't paying taxes, and that's more taxes on the rest of us.”

Matthew, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with selling all our companies to foreign corporations. If we deem the money tied up in the company can earn a higher return elsewhere, bring them foreigners on to bid.

Also, it is not God’s intent to have created man for the purpose of paying taxes as Marxist contend. And I know you are not contending this.

Karl Marx, "There's only one way to kill capitalism... by taxes, taxes, and more taxes."

Matthew says, “The more property that foreigners own, the more they control our destiny, and the less we control it.”

Land is just but one store of labor. There is nothing magical about it. Granted that philosophers of past centuries worshiped land because it was one of the few stores of labor. I have certainly not felt my destiny hampered in the least when Japan had been temporarily picking up land and its property taxes, property lawsuits, givernment (sic) regulation cost, EPA cleanup cost, maintenance cost, etc.. I find it quite liberating actually.

Matthew concludes, “I'll settle for more consumption-driven taxes (like import tariffs, VATs, and sales taxes) and fewer production-driven taxes (like income taxes and capital gains taxes). Then our domestic producers being bought out and/or moving overseas won't have an effect on me.”

I agree that these taxes would be less harmful. Our founders preferred this approach because it was self regulating on givernment. When taxes rose too high, people consumed less goods, cutting givernment funding and therefore the expansion of givernment. However, none of these will help today in a Marxist nation, because givernment will merely tax progressively as it does today. Therefore the bottom half of tax payers will still get exemptions for return of all taxes paid on consumption and the rate will then be raised exceptionally high to be paid by the other half of taxpayers. We have to remember that the founders never envisioned becoming a Marxist nation therefore the inadequacy of our Constitution.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.