There is demand and there is supply. Alfred Marshall taught us that they work together as in the two blades of scissors, but I guess that was primarily in a micro-economic context.
In macro-land there is also a need for both to work together, but that has been difficult recently, in part because each point of view has taken on the aura of religious fervor. Last year I was being copied on an e-mail exchange between a father and a son, both friends of mine. I forgot what the father said to prompt the son's strong response, but the response was intended to be a knock-out blow. The son called the father a Keynesian. Them was fightin' words.
Supply sliders remind us of the importance of incentives, especially as they pertain to marginal tax rates. In a deep recession, however, there is also a need for attention to the demand side. Keynes taught us how demand creates supply. Say earlier had taught us how supply creates demand. Why do we have to choose? Why can't they work together? Why can't we all be like the father, who just smiled.
Keynes divided total spending into major categories that respond to somewhat different stimuli: consumption, investment, government, and exports, with a subtraction for imports to avoid double counting. Consumption spending, which amounts to about 70 percent of the total, is being constrained by consumers' need to save. Business investment spending could be much greater than it is, given the resources and liquidity of businesses, but business leaders won't invest much as long as consumer spending isn't growing. Besides, the government is creating major headwinds to business investment by the reality and promise of higher taxes and harsh regulation. Government spending is at a very high level, but has reached the public's limit on further major increases to the deficit. Exports are generating domestic income, but import growth has more than offset that recently.
That latter point was the subject of an op ed piece in today's New York Times, titled "Trading Away the Stimulus."? Its authors point out that so far this year America's trade deficit has hit $289 billion, compared with $204 billion in the same period in 2009."? They attribute the lack of effectiveness of the stimulus program to this foreign trade leakage. They point out that ". . . since February 2009, the government has injected $512 billion into the American economy, but during roughly the same period, the trade deficit leaked about $602 billion out of it and into foreign markets."?
Unfortunately, the authors propose major foreign trade restrictions to plug this leakage. This would be a cure worse than the disease. First, it would sacrifice the many benefits of micro efficiency to plug an apparent macro leakage. We learned this lesson with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the early 1930s, which led to a downward spiral of world trade.
Second, foreign trade leakages tend to be self correcting since imports and exports are not independent of each other. As we import more and more, foreign entities accumulate dollars, which may temporarily be invested in U.S. financial assets, but ultimately will lead to more purchases of U.S. exports. To doubt that is to assume that our trading partners will forever exchange real goods and services for pieces of paper, so to speak. Likewise, a surplus in U.S. foreign trade would sow the seeds of a reversal in the future. We shouldn't use extreme and destructive measures to solve a "problem"? that is ultimately self correcting.
The quotes around problem in the previous sentence are a reminder that a temporary trade deficits or surpluses are not per se a good or bad thing. They are usually treated as problems because they represent "imbalances"? that probably aren't sustainable over the long run. One aspect of our prolonged trade deficit that does seem problematic is that it reflects a flow of capital to a rich country from poorer countries, the reverse of the text-book model. If it is a problem, however, it will fix itself.
Too much emphasis is placed on economics, and noweher near enough on political economy. First, most Americans â?? especially those without jobs â?? donâ??t see a net benefit from the â??many benefits of micro efficiency.â? Yes, trade is more efficient, but if it hollows out the middle class, are we really better off? Wouldnâ??t we (Americans) be better off to be a little less efficient, and instead have a large middle class with a much smaller-than-present income disparity (keep in mind, political stability is holding now, but if trends continue, it wonâ??t â?? the loss of the â??American Dreamâ? will see mobs with torches and pitchforks, at which point â??efficiencyâ? wonâ??t be worth a damn). Second, in economic â??theoryâ?, the dollars we send abroad from importing will eventually buy up US assets or our exports â?? but the only things we have to export are: some commodities, but mostly high-tech items that canâ??t be produced elsewhere. Japan (of 20-30 yrs ago), China, and Korea are very good examples of what happens when they get a hold of our technology: they rip it off. In other words, weâ??re selling the last bit of valuable items we have, so the status quo wonâ??t last for long.
Bob why do exporters to the US have to spend US dollars in the US? Canâ??t China buy oil from OPEC nations with their dollars? And what about OPEC countries canâ??t they buy goods and services from other countries using US dollars? The US dollar is â??theâ? worldâ??s most important reserve currency -that encourages our trading partners to hold on to our currency as far into the future as one can possibly see. All this makes it pretty easy for us to print money and barrow money to support our personal consumption. I believe the global economy revolves around US personal consumption â?? our job in the planetâ??s economic matrix is to spend money on personal consumption. Employment for US citizens is taking a backseat to the work of personal consumption. Weâ??ll be happy even if we donâ??t have jobs as long as we can shop.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
XHTML: You can use these tags:
Read Full Article »
