December 09, 2006
The advantages of criticizing trade

Don Boudreaux's letter to Kai Ryssdal, host of American Public Media's "Marketplace," appears (with permission) here:

Dear Mr. Ryssdal:

Marketplace routinely frets about the size of the U.S. trade deficit. So I was surprised when on yesterday's show, just after David Johnson reported that Intel earns 85.4 percent of its revenues from abroad, you asked Mr. Johnson if it "troubles" him "that all these big American companies are so dependent now on revenues from overseas."

Firms earn lots of revenues from overseas by selling lots of goods and services overseas. Such sales reduce the size of the U.S. trade deficit.

Now I don't worry one whit about the trade deficit. But your frequent fretting about this deficit, combined with your concern that many American firms earn substantial revenues from their foreign operations, tells me that you don't grasp even the basic principles of international trade.

This letter opens my eyes to yet another way that trade can be misrepresented: Selling abroad makes us dependent on foreign money. Of course, buying from abroad makes us dependeent on foreign products.

Add this gem to the usual litany of woes:

Running a trade deficit means that foreigners are taking away jobs from Americans who could be producing the imported products. At the same time, the implied foreign investment makes us dependent (that word again) or the whims of foreigners. Never mention the people who have jobs because of those investment.

Running a trade surplus means that, on net, Americans are investing overseas. The long-run implication is obvious: We are building factories to provide jobs for foreigners, when that money could be used to build American factories. As a result, foreigners will be able to produce more in the future and we will become dependent on their products because of our short-sighted policy of allowing Americans to build factories elsewhere.

Critics of trade just can't lose.

Don expands on this at Cafe Hayek.

Don's post suggests that this type of reasoning (?) be called msilitnacrem--reverse mercantilism. His email message suggested that "Marketplace" should be renamed "Stateplace." Both suggestions have merit.

Posted by Wilson Mixon at 02:29 PM in Economics

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith

Our Bloggers
Joshua Hall
Robert Lawson
E. Frank Stephenson
Michael C. Munger
Lawrence H. White
Craig Depken
Tim Shaughnessy
Edward J. Lopez
Brad Smith
Mike DeBow
Wilson Mixon
Art Carden

Blogroll

Search

Archives
By Author:
Joshua Hall
Robert Lawson
E. Frank Stephenson
Michael C. Munger
Lawrence H. White
Edward Bierhanzl
Craig Depken
Ralph R. Frasca
Tim Shaughnessy
Edward J. Lopez
Brad Smith
Mike DeBow
Wilson Mixon
Art Carden

By Month:
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004

Powered by
Movable Type 2.661

Site design by
Sekimori

XML