A Lovely Deficit
THANKS TO THE DEMAND FOR DRAMA on the part of the news media, popular economic discussion is rife with monsters threatening to eat up the U.S. economy or bring it down in flames. One of the most enduring of these bugaboos is the "current-account deficit," which continually reaches new all-time highs and generates an abundance of alarming headlines every time. And earlier this month, the government reported a near-record trade deficit of $42.1 billion for February.
Isn't it strange that the economy has prospered from one decade to the next even as the deficit monster has grown bigger and bigger? The "calamity" is always somewhere out there on the horizon.
The truth is that, far from a monster, our deficit from trade in goods and services is as friendly and health-promoting to the economy as a beloved pet is to your family.
According to popular understanding, a wide deficit reflects the propensity of an irresponsible American population to consume more than it produces or to spend more than it earns. It is politically incendiary because exports are associated (inaccurately) with jobs at home while imports are associated with jobs overseas. So, for anxious observers, the trade deficit symbolizes jobs for foreigners at our expense.
Furthermore, the deficit is widely argued to be unsustainable: Gullible foreigners currently willing to finance American profligacy are sure to wake up sooner or later and withdraw their funds, aren't they? Then our fragile house of cards will come crashing down.
There is something badly wrong with this picture. In fact, the whole picture is upside down.
For one thing, U.S. exports include many consumer goods that we could have consumed ourselves, and our imports include many investment goods such as equipment and other resources that enable businesses to create jobs.
While it may be true that there will always be a net inflow of capital from the rest of the world to offset whatever imbalance exists between exports and imports, that's a tautology; every transaction has two sides. The important question is which comes first: the international flow of capital, or the flow of goods and services? Which is the cause and which is the effect?
As usual, there are two opposing explanations, but the investing public usually gets to hear only one -- in this case, the gloomy one. Allegedly our stubborn overspending causes U.S. exports and imports to be mismatched, and foreign capital is forced to flow in to finance the difference. Much more reasonable is the explanation the media ignores: It is capital that chooses to flow into the United States, and a discrepancy between exports and imports arises to balance that flow.
Logic dictates that the second interpretation is the sound one. Global investors don't arrive arbitrarily at their collective opinion of the attractiveness and safety of the U.S. as a haven for investment. They make this decision carefully, and it is entirely voluntary. That their verdict continues to be favorable ensures a net inflow of capital into the U.S. from overseas.
The imbalance between exports and imports is a passive and automatic consequence of investor choices. Trade falls easily into line because, as a rule, people care far less about where the goods they buy come from than they do about where their savings are placed. The balance of trade is driven by investors, not consumers.
To see why the popular view is illogical, suppose some threat to the U.S. economy really were in the works. It could come from any of the usual monsters: deflation, private overindebtedness, or some kind of "bubble." Or suppose there really were a tendency of the population to spend more than it can afford. Whatever it might be, any realistic threat would quickly induce thoughtful investors to rethink their preference to hold assets in the U.S. rather than elsewhere. The resulting reallocation of savings around the world would have prevented a wide trade deficit from existing in the first place.
The trade deficit is a consequence of a successful economy in the present and not a menace to economic growth in the future. Countries with deficits are growth opportunities, and they are net absorbers of capital, just like growth companies. It's too bad for the media and its pundits if there is less drama in that.
Overwhelming evidence points the same way: it is undisputed that the trade deficit widens during the expansion phase of the business cycle and narrows with the deceleration phase. A widening of the deficit (reflecting an increase in the net-capital inflow) is positively correlated with increased growth of total output, investment and jobs alike.
In the end, the problem is semantic. The term "deficit" has a negative connotation, associated in the popular mind with debt and insolvency. The more neutral word "imbalance" still implies that something, somewhere, is wrong, while actually, this particular imbalance is a sign that something is absolutely right. Maybe if the current-account deficit were simply relabeled the "capital-inflow surplus," we could all see it for what it really is -- a barometer of our economic health.
为"贸易逆差"欢呼
新闻媒体总是对戏剧性事件怀有浓厚兴趣，因此时下在对经济问题的讨论中，有关美国经济面临"恶魔"威胁的论调不绝于耳，这些"恶魔"不是将吞噬美国经济就是要把美国经济击垮。最长盛不衰的一个"恶魔"就是"经常项目赤字"，美国经常项目赤字仍在不断创出新高，并且每次都引起不小的惊慌。本月初，美国政府宣布，2月份贸易逆差达到接近历史高点的421亿美元。
十年过去了、二十年过去了，而美国经济在贸易逆差不断扩大的同时仍保持繁荣，这岂不怪哉？"灾难"一直是若即若离，但从未真正到来。
实际上，商品和服务贸易逆差不但不是"恶魔"，反而是经济的好伴侣，是有益经济良性发展的催化剂，就如同你心爱的宠物对你们家人的作用一样。
一般来讲，贸易逆差扩大反映了不负责任的美国人消费超过生产、或支出超过收入的趋向。这个问题极容易在政治上掀起波澜，因为出口往往被（不正确地）与国内就业联系起来，而进口与海外就业紧密相连。因此，对焦虑不安的观察家而言，贸易逆差象徵著外国就业增加而国内就业减少。
再进一步，人们普遍认为贸易逆差是非持续性的：虽然愚笨的外国人当前愿意为美国人的肆意挥霍埋单，但是迟早他们会醒悟过来，随后撤出他们的资金，难道不是吗？到那时，美国脆弱的沙中城堡就会轰然倒塌。
上面这个观点存在著致命的错误。事实上，实际情况恰恰相反。
首先，美国出口中包括许多我们本可以自己使用的消费品，而我们的进口包括设备以及其他资源等投资商品，美国公司可以用这些进口品创造就业。
也许来自其他国家的资金净流入永远都能够抵消美国进出口的不平衡，这似乎毋庸赘述；每个交易都是双方面的。问题的关键是先有鸡还是先有蛋：是国际资本流动在先，还是先有商品和服务的流动？哪个是因，哪个是果？
对于这个问题照例有两个截然不同的解释，但是投资大众通常只听到一个──令人沮丧的那一个。据称，我们一意孤行的过度支出导致美国进、出口失衡，这迫使外国资金流入以弥补这一失衡。而比这远为合理的一个解释则被媒体忽略了：外国资本选择流入美国，美国进出口差额则是为了平衡资金的流入。
第二种解释更符合逻辑。全球投资者并非武断的一致认为美国资产兼具吸引力和安全性，美国是投资天堂。他们的决定是深思熟虑的结果，而且是完全自发的。他们的这一结论仍是当今的主流观点，这确保了外国资金的净流入。
进出口失衡是投资者选择的一个被动的、自发的结果。贸易问题之所以很容易引起人们的关注是因为，人们通常不太关注所购买商品来自何地，而对他们的存款放在何处却非常在意。贸易差额是投资者行为的结果，而非消费者行为所致。
要明白为什么最流行的观点不符合逻辑，我们假设一些对美国经济真正构成威胁的"恶魔"：通货紧缩、个人负债过多或者某种"泡沫"都是通常所称的"恶魔"。或者假设美国人的确有支出超过收入的倾向。不论是何种情形，任何实际的威胁都将很快让善于思考的投资者重新考虑他们持有美国资产的偏好。由此导致的全球资金的重新分配将从一开始就阻止美国巨额贸易逆差的形成。
贸易逆差是当前一个成功的经济体所附带来的现象，而不是对未来经济增长的威胁。出现贸易逆差的国家意味著增长机会，这些国家是资金的净流入国，这正如同增长型公司的情形一样。如果这其中没有什么戏剧性成分，对媒体和权威人士来讲可真是再糟糕不过的事情了。
大量的事实都得出了同样的结论：毋庸置疑，在商业周期的扩张阶段贸易逆差将会扩大，在放缓阶段贸易逆差将会收窄。贸易逆差扩大（反映了资金净流入的增长）与总产出、投资和就业增长是正相关的。
最后，这个问题与语义有关。"赤字"这个词含有贬义，在一般人的思维中它与负债和破产同属一类。"失衡"这个更加中性的词仍意味著在某个地方出现了问题，而实际上，失衡恰恰是完全正常的一个标志。也许，如果经常项目赤字被重新命名为"资本净流入盈余"，我们就能看到这个指标的本义──一个衡量经济健康状况的指标。
