Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: expat_panama; PMCarey; Willie Green
"...you can say that trade surpluses do not prevent depressions..."

That's for sure, and we can also say that trade deficits don't prevent prosperity. I guess all we can see is that the bigger the trade deficit, the better off we are.

If we're going to talk about the trade deficit, why don't we actually look at a graph of the trade deficit? Your graph is of the current account deficit, a close relative of the trade deficit. The Current Account Balance equals the Goods and Services Balance plus the Income Balance plus Unilateral Current Transfers, net. The following graph shows the trade deficit AND the current account deficit:

The actual numbers and sources are at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/tradeall.html. As you can see, the goods and services deficit did not become a surplus during either the double-dip recession of 1980-82 or the recession of 1990-91. And during the recession of 2001, even the current account didn't become a surplus. So this proves that trade DEFICITS likewise to not prevent recessions. In addition, the U.S. had numerous periods of prosperity during the 77 years from 1894 through 1970 during which it ran nothing but trade surpluses. That likewise proves that trade surpluses don't prevent prosperity.

In fact, I believe we have talked about this before. During a recession, people spend less on goods and services, including imports. If it is not a worldwide recession, exports tend not to be affected. Since the trade balance equals exports minus imports. this causes the trade deficit to decrease (or a trade surplus to increase). Hence, it's likely that recessions tend to cause the trade deficit to narrow, not the other way around as you suggest.

In fact, I believe that you are missing the forest for the trees. In concentrating on every zig and zag in the trade deficit, you're ignoring the long-run trends. The U.S. ran a trade surplus in the 77 years from 1894 through 1970 and has run a trade deficit ever since 1976. It is now close to 6 percent of GDP, a level which I don't believe it has reached before. Do you believe that every year from 1976 to now was more prosperous than every year from 1896 to 1970 and that, judging by our current record deficits, we are now approaching economic nirvana?

56 posted on 12/18/2005 2:49:30 AM PST by remember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: remember
"During a recession, people spend less on goods and services, including imports."

That part I can follow you because it's just like what I said in post 55 "the bigger the trade deficit, the better off we are."  The part where you lost me was with "Do you believe that every year from 1976 to now was more prosperous than every year from 1896 to 1970 and that, judging by our current record deficits, we are now approaching economic nirvana?"  

Where to begin.  Aw heck, I can't imagine you or anyone else ever wanting to live like they did back in the 1800's --I personally know people who do and--   it ain't pretty.  How about you and I try and agree on an index of prosperity for comparing standards of living in 1896 with today lifestyles--- nah, can't happen.   

I guess it's simply not a good idea to post ideas just before dawn on a Sunday morning.  I tried to respond immediately to you this morning but what I was typing came out like "Do you believe that every year from 1976 to now was less prosperous than every year from 1896 to 1970 and that, judging by our current capital account surpluses, we are now approaching economic perdition?" Like, that just doesn't even make any sense.

57 posted on 12/18/2005 12:14:30 PM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson