Why does the U.S. always run a trade deficit?
No one else can manufacture USD's, so other countries have to acquire them by shaping their economies to supply goods and services demanded by the US. They can then use these earned dollars to transact with other countries, as the US itself insists they do.
For the US, this is a simple trade off - gain massive political influence (and market intelligence - all USD transactions go through US institutions regardless of where those transacting partners are located), at the expense of hollowing out domestic industry and running a deficit in physical goods traded.
The solution is a non-national global reserve, calculated on a basket of national currencies. This was Keynes argument at Bretton Woods, but the US would not have it then, and does not want it now.
China for example, sends huge number of electronics and all kind of other consumer goods that Chinese produce by sweating in 12 hours shifts in 6 day work weeks in exchange for imaginary numbers.
US is definitely not the victim here. There's the risk of this system stop working and that's when the US might have hard times due to being forced to live by its means and have no ability to kickstart its own production when that time comes.
It makes sense to be worried for such an eventuality but US is definitely not being taken advantage here. The situation is more like selling your startup at young age and live a lavish lifestyle with the money without working and studying and risk becoming penniless and unemployable by the 50s.
It gets massive amounts of products and services enabling the US residents live well beyond their means.
What does this mean really? That is their means.
For a somewhat topical example, people of Australia get access to cheap medications (in part because they pay to subsidize the cost of them but also because) their government negotiates with pharmaceutical corporations to pay lower prices. This kind of negotiation would be completely out of reach of any private Australian person, but they are not living outside their means. Their means includes the means to elect governments to run the country for the benefit of its own people including doing things like securing lower prices for medications.
China for example, sends huge number of electronics and all kind of other consumer goods that Chinese produce by sweating in 12 hours shifts in 6 day work weeks in exchange for imaginary numbers.
Until 1990, Kenya had a higher GDP per capia than China. It is absolutely not "imaginary". Work produces real value, just because you can represent or trade that for allegedly "imaginary" currency does not mean that the value created was imaginary.
US is definitely not the victim here. There's the risk of this system stop working and that's when the US might have hard times due to being forced to live by its means and have no ability to kickstart its own production when that time comes.
US manufacturing output is double that of China's on a per-capita basis.
It makes sense to be worried for such an eventuality but US is definitely not being taken advantage here.
Seems like that's the popular assertion but I don't see much solid reasoning behind it in this thread (not picking on you specifically), just handwaving about how USD's status as a global currency somehow makes trade deficits inevitable despite simple facts available that US had a surplus trade balance 50 years ago, when the USD has been considered the global / reserve currency for over 60 years.
US manufacturing output is double that of China's on a per-capita basis.
Only on a dollar value basis. And that's heavily skewed on how an item's value is calculated. When you use $50 of parts (all made in China) to assemble a machine that you sold at $500 , $50 of GDP value is attributed to China while $450 of GDP value is attributed to the US. But who did more "manufacturing"?
While the dollar remains the global reserve currency, this is just a wild theory of trade. If the $450 of value was so easy to extract, why wouldn't China simply assemble it in their own country and take the whole pie?
(they clearly already do this everywhere they can)
If the $450 of value was so easy to extract, why wouldn't China simply assemble it in their own country and take the whole pie?
If you pay attention, you'll notice that's what China is doing. For decades, China's GDP growth towered over the US's. Around 2015, China's GDP PPP overtook the US's.
Isn’t automation easier to face with population decline than with population increase?
No? These things do not seem to be connected in any way.
It's basically what's mostly killed my own small town.
My hometown, with a fairly consistent population of about 300 people, used to have a restaurant, bowling alley, full-service station, hardware store, bar, and grocery store. In my childhood, the restaurant, grocery store, and hardware store were still around. They died. And they died partially because gas got cheap and partly because goods producers increasingly jacked up their prices to small suppliers because they didn't want to deal with them. It was simply more lucrative and easier to see 1000 units to walmart than 10 to "Small town USA grocer". Near the EOL of the grocer, they'd literally buy their good from walmart because they couldn't get them anywhere else. The cheap gas led to people from my town traveling to nearby larger towns and cities to find cheaper goods.
The restaurant went out of business because it depended heavily on the prices of the local grocer. Towards the end, you'd literally call ahead the owner so they could open the doors and start cooking for you.
I can't say what the solution to all this is. The market is simply busted for small time business owners who want to move any sort of physical good. That has had knock on effects nationwide that haven't been positive, particularly for rural america.
It's actually gotten a little better in the last decade, I think because people got some hope again that jobs might come back, and because remote work meant fewer people were driving to the bigger town down the road every day, so there became more of a market in the small town for things like a grocery store or Dollar General-type store again. There are also more home-based businesses, started by people who work full- or part-time remotely and put their spare time into starting a local business.
But in the 90s/2000s, it was nothing more than a bedroom community for the town 20 miles away, which was sad. It's still nothing like it once was, but at least there are some signs of life now.
Automation can create a dynamically changing labor market. Today you had a job, tomorrow it is automated, you need to find another job, learn new skills required for it, and all of this.
Not a problem for the young (especially since automation increases the general standard of living, so young people will often find that their new job pays better).
But older people find it more difficult to adapt, learn new skills and find their place in a changed world.
And then there is career growth. Imagine an elderly gentleman who has spent 30 years building a career, accumulating valuable experience, and is USED to receiving a huge salary for his qualifications... And he is told that he has been replaced by a video card, his skills are now worth nothing on the market, and in the job available to him he will now be paid the same as a snotty 20-year-old yesterday's schoolboy. Do you think this won't become a point of social tension in a situation where there aren't many young workers?
There is also a solidarity pension system, which creates a greater burden on workers the smaller the proportion of young people and the greater the proportion of old people.
And in the scenario of a population decline with a simultaneous increase in living standards - this will create enormous social tension, when the shrinking working class will ask itself: why should we give more and more of the money we earned with our sweat and blood to old people who were unable to save for their old age when were younger?
Even if no one voices this as an official slogan, it will still be implied in political decisions and will boil down to at least the fact that old people will be denied an increase in their standard of living ("because we are already giving them more and more, but look at what a terrible world they left us, and now they want to live in luxury at the expense of our sweat and blood?").
But with the aging of the population, the proportion of old people will increase very much, and, if we are talking about democratic regimes, their political influence will be increased.
And the situation, when we have a confrontation between a shrinking productive minority and people who do not produce anything, but have power over them and live at their expense - can end badly. It will definitely end badly. Like, really badly
Current birth rate increase policies in China are based mostly on rewarding for births and subsidizing parenting costs.
I just find it amusing that in this theory of trade China has found a way to do all the work while the US does nothing and takes all the value. Perhaps all that extra money is not as easy to claim as the OP suggests.
Maybe economies are changing and purely physical goods are becoming less valuable...
Growth is trivial to achieve when you are starting from zero.
China currently reports the second highest GDP in the world.
For decades, China's GDP growth towered over the US's.
It's much easier to 100x $1k than to 10x $1m.
This is not to take away from the achievements of the Chinese economy, which are gargantuan. You just can't linearly extrapolate growth rates.
It's much easier to 100x $1k than to 10x $1m.
That's kind of goes against the conventional wisdom, which largely feels true in my experience, that "the rich get richer". Countries are a bit different, but China looks poised to avoid the middle income trap up to a point, and even if they don't, their "middle income" is a lot more likely to fall somewhere near the Japanese levels, which would make the Chinese economy massively bigger than the US one, by 2050.
It's much easier to 100x $1k than to 10x $1m.
China's GDP is the second largest in the world, and is around two thirds of US's. China's economy is growing continuously over 5% whereas the US already discussed facing a recession.
In some metrics, such as PPP GDP, China already towers over the US.
I think you're trying ver hard to diminish the second largest economy of the world at a moment where it's expected to be a few years until it's the single largest.
Say a bottle of wine costs $20 in the USA, and in total one bottle is produced and sold for a total of $20 GDP. France makes 10 bottles at $2 each, for a similar GDP of $20. It's cool that the USA manages to "extract more value" from its smaller wine production, but at the end of the day, France has the stronger economy.
There's more wine to go around, more resilience to the loss of a bottle, arguably this higher production means more export capacity, more employment, more generation of wine expertise, supply chains, etc.
The nominal GDPs might be the same, but the GDP (PPP) of France in this case would be $200 to the USA's $20.
[1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purcha...
China's GDP (PPP) is already ~22% higher than the USA's[1]. Arguably, isn't this a better measure of value? PPP measures the real value to the citizens in a nation, and more closely measures actual economic activity.
Only if the only things you purchase are exclusively domestic. Turns out, the vast majority of Chinese citizens with any means are interested in foreign products (like most people in the world).
Only if the only things you purchase are exclusively domestic. Turns out, the vast majority of Chinese citizens with any means are interested in foreign products (like most people in the world).
Are they, though? China has its own huge software stacks, cloud providers, car manufacturers, etc? Is China really starving for anything not made in China, except for luxury goods? To which, I would point at Lexus (the archetypal example from Japan, a comparable country) and say that if you're a luxury good manufacturer in the Western world, I would not rest on my laurels, it's just a matter of time: either by development or acquisition, China will be making its own luxury goods and even exporting them, soon.
What you are mistakingly calling "capitalism" that China should adopt is... democracy.
Edit to add link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Comm... (“views on Capitalism”)
Turns out, the vast majority of Chinese citizens with any means are interested in foreign products (like most people in the world).
Is there data that backs up this claim? Is this broadly the case? Cause I do know that local brands have been taking over foreign brands recently. Take for example Apple— sales in China plunged 50%, and reports are pointing at Huawei[1], which amongst other things has been making some impressive high-end phones. Tesla is falling to Chinese brands too[2].
Moreover, foreign brand != foreign product. Tesla manufactures in China, as does Apple, Louis Vuitton, etc.
But regardless of specific examples, I'd imagine the vast majority of consumption in China isn't products of foreign origin given its massive trade surplus[3] and just how much of what it imports are materials, rather than finished consumer goods[4].
[1] https://www.asiafinancial.com/apple-sales-in-china-plunge-50...
[2] https://carnewschina.com/2025/05/12/teslas-sales-in-china-do...
[3] https://tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade
[4] https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn?selector343id=Impor...
What other system of value are you using here? Bottle caps? Nostalgia?
A common proxy is "metric tonnes of steel produced" and "metric tonnes of sulfuric acid produced". For China, these have been going up in-line with their GDP growth, whereas for USA they have flatlined since 1980 despite the increase in manufacturing dollar-value output.
I think it is telling that the rest of the world (particularly the central banks of most countries) have instead chosen USD (well, more specifically US treasuries) as their preferred store of value.
Well, at least, for now...
You asked a question, they answered in good faith, and now you've dismissed their answer. I would also point out that you're dismissal is actually about a related, but separate issue - you've suddenly started talking about preferred store of value, when your original question was about how to value production.
I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
You are correct, there are many ways to measure value.
However, I don't think picking various commodities as the "true" measure of what is "valuable" is a useful exercise.
You may disagree. That's fine! I suggest you put your wisdom to use on the various markets that are set up for this purpose instead of arguing with me.
EDIT: they ultimately never reached my main point anyway, which is: regardless of if you measure value in tons of steel or crushed coconut shells, if China could easily obtain that value by assembling this stuff themselves, why export all the inputs to us instead?
I don't think picking various commodities as the "true" measure of what is "valuable" is a useful exercise.
No one said that a commodity is a "true" measure of value. A commenter simply said that it is often a useful proxy. It is something that is useful to do to understand specific trade patterns.
I suggest you put your wisdom to use on the various markets that are set up for this purpose instead of arguing with me.
I did not claim any wisdom on the subject. And I suspect you are deflecting attention from the fact that you are not arguing in good faith
No one said that a commodity is a "true" measure of value. A commenter simply said that it is often a useful proxy. It is something that is useful to do to understand specific trade patterns.
Ok, if it helps replace "true measure" with "useful proxy". My argument remains the same.
Continue to accuse me of whatever you want, I still do not feel you are engaging with the substance of what I'm saying.
If a paralegal at a fancy law firm works 9 billable hours at $200/h, and a senior partner then spends one hour adding some finishing touches for which he bills $2000, the paralegal has likely produced more work, but the partner’s output is more valuable (and sometimes it might not even be that useful, maybe the paralegal could’ve done the whole thing himself, but the oversight is part of the package and that’s what a senior partner costs).
Which metric is more useful probably depends on what you’re trying to find out.
The metric to measure value using quantity of goods must use a common denominator unit, otherwise, comparison becomes subjective (one might want to value tangible goods more than intangibles for example).
So making comparison using a price makes a lot of sense.
Why? It's an aliexpress model. Create as many legal entities as you can and let an economic Darwinism kill the ones you do poorly at and cherry pick your successful businesses.
The actual labor is outsourced to the market itself with products produced in southeast Asia by a wholesaler, sent to the market by said contracted wholesaler, and sales handled by the market's fairly much only retailer. It's so automated you really only have to be lucky that consumers pick your product and luck can be bent to will at times.
It's a very botnet approach to business.
This does expand the approach from flooding the market with cheap goods, to making cheap goods and competing with prices from the middlemen, making less efforted profits using the same approach, but exports the profits out of the US economy. I know this is a unusual framing but that's exactly what is happening.
Before a middleman within the economy would extract the wealth from that labor in this way. Why not cut out the middleman if the formula can be followed by anyone? And in the current belligerent state of trade it would politically expedient to do so or at the very least encourage this model if you are adversarial to the US because it works well. Our businesses already proved that.
If the $450 of value was so easy to extract, why wouldn't China simply assemble it in their own country and take the whole pie?
As someone else pointed out, they do, under various odd brand names.
You make what seems like an obvious point. However, The iPhone is assembled in China for the ballpark cost you mention, and sells for double the $450 price you mention... so they must have reasons to not take the whole pie.
Or if you go to war then all those base manufacturing can be used to manufacture for military
What other system of value are you using here? Bottle caps? Nostalgia?
The system where "production" means "where has item XYZ actually been made".
And for more than 1/3rd of all items, the answer to that question is: China.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-worlds-sole-manufacturi...
Only on a dollar value basis.
Uh, yes.
And that's heavily skewed on how an item's value is calculated.
An item's value is calculated according to what it is bought and sold for. That's how value is determined. What would you rather it "skew" towards?
When you use $50 of parts (all made in China) to assemble a machine that you sold at $500 , $50 of GDP value is attributed to China while $450 of GDP value is attributed to the US. But who did more "manufacturing"?
If an American company can design and develop and sell a product that requires $50 of parts and people are willing to pay $500 for it, then clearly that company created an enormous amount of value, didn't it? By definition almost. Manufacturing output or value is not a function of the number of beads of sweat or drops of blood or hours in a factory to make something. It is how much value (i.e., what others are willing to pay for) the things you create.
In the pre-tariff omnishambles world, I could buy a more or less equivalent widget for $18 branded with a recognizable American brand, for $12 as a KWJIBO non-brand delivered from Amazon, or for $6 more-or-less manufacturer direct from AliExpress.
Amazon added $6 of value by saying "I can get it to you in a timely manner and offer a confidence-reinforcing return policy."
The American brand added another $6 of value for "this can probably be sourced consistently and people won't look at you weird trying to get it Shenzhen Tchang Zu Shrimp Cannery And Electrolytic Capacitor Plant #5 onto the approved vendor list."
They didn't actually improve the widget itself, just logistics around it. That means their value-add is extremely tenuous, and has a limited moat.
then clearly that company created an enormous amount of value
No, it is more like these companies monopolized access to the high income market and exploited this inefficiency. It is similar to buying a stock for $10 then increasing the bid ask spread to sell it for $100.
No, it is more like these companies monopolized access to the high income market and exploited this inefficiency. It is similar to buying a stock for $10 then increasing the bid ask spread to sell it for $100.
Okay so we have this scenario you constructed where the Chinese company produced great value without engaging in any IP theft or unbalanced terms of trade or currency manipulation and the American company simply took that and gouged prices with anticompetitive practices. What exactly is your question? The hypothetical American company in your example did not create value, by definition. I don't see how that's particularly useful though.
If access was monopolized, then no competition would exist. Competition very much exists, and has resulted in a massive amounts of growth and improvement globally.
A few years ago, Huawei was in a clear path of becoming the biggest producer of smartphones in the world, with smartphones that by now were based on their own IP, including CPUs and modems, even if Huawei had started 20 years ago by buying smartphone IP from companies like Siemens (which had been reckless enough to sell it). At that time, the latest Huawei designs were superior in performance to those of Qualcomm and superior in performance per dollar to those of Apple.
The result was that the US government has started a campaign of sabotage against Huawei, because they did not like the result of a "free market".
A couple of years later everything has repeated when there was the danger that Chinese manufacturers of flash memories will overcome Micron.
So the percentage that American "IP" takes in the products of other countries is only maintained by quasi-military actions of the US government, which treats any commercial rivals as enemies against which any sanctions are justified.
The fairness of the competition between American and China in IP, I'm sure if you are heavy on one side or the other its obvious, but to me it seems like there is truth in China stealing secrets and there is truth in America using quasi-military actions to protect what is basically a monopoly on a segment of high-value goods. But whatever you think, what Trump is doing now ultimately benefits China and hurts America in the short and long term.
For example, Huawei was famous for draconic rules imposed to its employees in order to ensure that they could not take out any information from their computers and also that no information could be accessed by any visitor or by anyone outside working hours.
Presumably they were very careful with this because that is how they would have attempted to exploit a competitor.
Nevertheless, the many Americans who still believe that the Chinese success is based on stolen IP are completely delusional.
China has bought most of the IP with which they have started developments and not stolen it. Reckless companies from USA and EU have sold all that IP. Talking about "stealing" is just a tactic used to obscure who are the culprits, who have obtained nice financial gains from selling IP to China.
Moreover, in recent years China no longer has much to steal from USA, more the opposite becomes true.
If I look at recent research papers, even if there are also many published Chinese papers that are garbage, there also many that are very innovative, and such innovative Chinese research papers have become much more numerous than the innovative research papers coming from USA. The reason appears to be that the Chinese seem now willing to assume more risks, in searching paths that are uncertain to lead to useful results, while the research in USA seems to have become more conservative, striving to obtain immediate and guaranteed results, which however may not be able to exit a local optimal point in the space of solutions.
I assume that as research financing becomes more difficult, the research in USA will become even more conservative, diminishing its chances to compete successfully in innovations with China.
USA on the other hand can just print it out of thin air and because the global USD liquidity is huge they can do it for much longer without facing the consequences of it. USA is also borrowing in currency they can just print to pay their debts. Very advantageous position for USA and they took advantage of it, imported crazy amount of products and services otherwise they wouldn't have.
I implore everyone reading this thread to read up on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Stephanie Kelton’s “The Deficit Myth” is a good place to start. Until more people have a better understanding for how the system works, they’ll continue to be confused and easily led astray by politicians who don’t have the best interests of most people in mind, but instead wish to rob us blind in a vain attempt to eliminate trade/budget deficits.
(Note: I’m very much for restoring domestic manufacturing as much as possible, including the use of highly targeted tariffs, industrial policy, R&D, workforce development, etc. but this is not what the current administration is doing, not even close).
as long as we keep inflation in check
MMT discourse tends to gloss over or ignore the dangers of runaway inflation and act as if you can borrow all you want with no consequence.
I see people say this a lot, which is odd since as far as I have seen it's one of the main points MMT people make. I'm not sure how one of the core insights of MMT has become the main criticism of it, it's kind of funny.
I suppose this is because some people have taken MMT to mean that debt doesn't matter, however that is really not at all what it says. I think a more reasonable conclusion of the system MMT describes is that how money is spent matters greatly (productive vs unproductive spending), the primary purpose of taxes is keeping inflation in-check, and real resources are critical to the health of a currency.
I have not seen an explanation that makes the case for taxes ... This is sort of what I mean by the discourse ignoring inflation.
I've not seen one that is properly based in reason either, most lines of thought in this vein typically use a strawman version of Say's law as the basis, following a deeply carved fallacy in economics from an early error of Keynes.
Both of those can be targeted in such a way as to deflate an inflated economy in a controlled way. The messaging is the hard part, as you're fighting against the emotions of a prideful workforce and the teeth-gnashing of the ambitious elite who see the stars as the literal limit. It is, however, possible to make sure everyone gets what they need to survive and even modestly thrive, while bringing the insanity of our current asset valuations and consumer prices back down to Earth, for a fraction of the cost of trying to keep the charade going indefinitely. You just have to throw rich people under the bus, instead of young and middle-aged workers whose purchasing power bleeds out every time we do yet another never-done-before thing to backstop failing banks and securities.
That's a planned economy.
Man, do I have something to tell you about the FFR, porkbarrel spending, etc....
And letting bubbles pop isn't an MMT thing. It's bog-standard economic theory. The fact that politicians often don't do it has nothing to do with which theory they subscribe to. It's just cowardice on their part.
In which case that is just "reduce your budget and spend less" with extra steps.
I'm pretty sure the extra steps are the point, in that I simply don't believe the MMT folks expect them to ever take place.
It's not a coincidence it's an American theory, from a country where it's politically almost impossible to raise taxes. Otherwise it would just be a roundabout way to raise taxes and pay for stuff in reverse order. But in fact it isn't "buy now pay later". It's "buy now YOLO LOL". But hey, maybe I'm missing something.
The pressure to automate will just skyrock.
I'm more for a global currency which will be given to everyone who does certain jobs we can't automate away or don't want to like nursing, teaching.
Everyone around the globe can get worldfiat when they do these jobs.
We need to start thinking beyond known capitalism in a modern highly automated world.
US can do some things more, bigger, longer, etc., for various reasons. Just like Australia can do more, bigger, longer, etc., than Tonga. I don't really see anything profound being said here.
USA might be in some advantageous position now, and it might not always be in such a position, which is a pretty bland observation, but it also does not support the idea that they are living beyond their means today.
But whatever difference it makes is still just a matter of degrees. Countries keep reserves of and trade in currencies other than USD. Some get more benefit than others from this, and they all work to benefit from what advantage they can take from their own positions within their means to do so.
In 1971 US unilaterally scrapped the Bretton Woods and essentially stole the gold reserves. Other countries protested heavily but could not really do much.
US then transitioned to the petrodollar system where demand for and value of the dollar is/was ensured by dollar monopoly in oil trade. This was done with deals with oil producing countries with varying levels of coercion.
Granted it is in a country's best interest not to piss off the world's largest military. Silver or lead is a decision too.
And the idea that the US somehow enforces their dollar as being the reserve is moot - it is simply not true. Countries use the US dollar for trade because both sides of the trade believes that the other side cannot "cheat" using this currency, and implicitly believes that the US gov't won't "cheat" on behalf of one side either.
Unfortunately, this trust is being undermined from various sides, including the current US administration (and i have a hard time believing that the trump administration doesnt know this - it seems deliberate).
US for sure didn't do it out of goodness of their hearts even if it led to arguably better monetary system. And US did get lopsided benefits out of it. Consistently recieving more goods than you give out is a huge benefit.
When USA do the same, the non-USA dollar holders also take on the cost, same-same, excepting that is everyone around the World who trades in dollars. Which comes back to USA's military-industrial complex to some extent. It's like having the ability to steal a gram from every gold bar in the World.
In the case of the dollar if you suddenly double the supply it's not just the US national debt that is affected, it's all the secondary financial products indexed on dollar that are affected: debt from countries and private companies across the world, commodities and all transactions between countries not involving US that are dollar denominated. So in a way the value of a single dollar is diluted but it's diluted over a much bigger pool of participants.
That's the main reason printing money is cheaper to US as is reflected on the bond market, just look at supply vs inflation around the years following the global pandemic.
Living beyond their means is very relative. When credit is virtually free for years it makes sense to run 10x leveraged, the problem is when interest rate rises and you have to deleverage without showing too much that you don't have that much money as failing to do so could result in a death trap spiral.
What does this mean really? That is their means.
It means Americans are providing mainly a financial service, by managing the dollar. The value of their currency therefore doesn’t accrue from a real economy, which, by definition, only includes consumer goods and services.
US dollars might one day cease to be the global reserve currency in which case Americans will not see such benefits associated with that. This is a true statement. That doesn't mean they are currently living beyond their means either though.
I will one day become infirm and unable to earn money, that does not mean I'm currently living beyond my means.
That is not the same thing because it's real productivity, labor is the only thing in the world that has any real value. You're exchanging your own labor for other people's labor. The US is exchanging something that has no inherent value (USD) for other people's labor.
If I take on all the debt that I can, max out my credit cards, mortgage my house, and spend everything I have on luxuries, am I living beyond my means, or am I living within my means as evidenced by the fact that I'm actually doing it?
The rest of the world was and remains very happy to play this game, because it reduces the amount of trouble people have when exchanging currencies.
It gives advantages to America, sure. But America recognized that there were consequences.
Today, 1/3rd of the American electorate is insulated from reality, and its politics are free to downplay, or ignore consequences, if not just blame them on the opposition.
No one has an answer to a broken market of information. In the end, reality will have its due.
We're talking about $5600 per inhabitant per year.
Lots of countries have a lot of debt, many are in similar boats or worse as USA when you look at various metrics like debt per capita, per gdp, etc. Politicians and their "experts" and economists etc generally insist this is perfectly fine. I also get the feeling they're probably lying about that and many other things, though I don't know enough about the subject to actually know myself.
Seems like that's the popular assertion but I don't see much solid reasoning behind it in this thread (not picking on you specifically), just handwaving about how USD's status as a global currency somehow makes trade deficits inevitable despite simple facts available that US had a surplus trade balance 50 years ago, when the USD has been considered the global / reserve currency for over 60 years.
Prior to 1971 the Dollar was tied to Gold and exchange rates were fixed by agreement.
If you're going around quoting those figures, you should be aware they're kinda sketchy.
Headline manufacturing output figures measure "real" output, rather than $ of output, as the latter would just be a graph of inflation and exchange rate. And when measuring "real" output, if a factory making 1TB SSDs switches to producing 2TB SSDs it has increased its output, despite the fact they're shipping the same number of boxes as they were yesterday.
Sure, the numbers say real output per worker has risen a lot since 1980. But most of the "rising efficiency" comes from the folks making 33MHz 1-core CPUs now making 5GHz 24-core CPUs. Cut out that sector and you'll discover why the US has an entire region known as the "rust belt".
What does this mean really? That is their means.
Kind of, yes. Also if you take away other's people assets by force you can say you live by your means because you produce violence.
That's a matter of terminology, the real thing to be considered is the sustainability of this system.
If this setup can be sustained perpetually then yes, it's sort of within your means. If gradually deplete some reserves (gold or trust or domestic stability due to rising inequality) then it can be argued that you live beyond your means.
What does this mean really? That is their means.
The "means" is being able to print trillions of imaginary dollars with value that magically pops into existence, merely backed by the fact that other nations do not want USD to lose value because they invest in it.
US did not care about trade deficits because they were able to just print dollars without having dollar itself devalued, which is what happens if any other nation decides to print currency without having a way to back its value. Because the US status as global hegemony is getting challenged, these trade deficits may become an issue. But trade deficits were not an issue until now (and they still are not as long as they can keep printing dollars without hyperinflation happening).
> It gets massive amounts of products and services enabling the US residents live well beyond their means.What does this mean really? That is their means.
The argument presented here is that economic growth (more specifically trade volume increase) outside USofA forces USD acquisition transactions with USofA. This means that there is constant surplus of goods flowing into USofA without accompanying surplus of circulating money supply, leading to artificial deflation.
In other words, the cumulative productivity, measured in USD, of USofA is lower than cumulative outside-USofA-fair-market value of goods transacted in USofA. This effect increases gross value on supply side without balancing out gross value on demand side, allowing domestic players larger transaction volumes than their total productivity, with deficit covered by the central bank.
just handwaving about how USD's status as a global currency somehow makes trade deficits inevitable despite simple facts available that US had a surplus trade balance 50 years ago, when the USD has been considered the global / reserve currency for over 60 years.
US has had two trade surplus years since the USD essentially replaced gold as the reserve asset: 1973 and 1975. The reserve currency status is the primary reason for the practically constant deficit. During the Bretton Woods era US ran consistent surplus.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/t...
Yes. The mass of US consumers do benefit from penny subsidies of certain foreign product.
However, for every penny of foreign subsidy benefitting US consumers buying finished iron or steel goods, a US metallurgist is losing a job somewhere.
On strictly numbers, we are better off with foreing-paid subsidies yes, but there are losers, and they take the brunt of the downside.
So id update your analogy by adding a twist: your childhood sitter living on anytown, USA was the virtual receptionist of the business. She had no RSUs in the business. She stayed in anytown and declined a career in a larger, growing city because she found virtual work and it made her happy. Now she's stuck with a mortgage, in a dying town, and with no career prospects locally. And all because you offered her a job that incentivized her to move, and then changed the relationship to her job 180 degrees .
Separately, ive only discussed the trade impact on consumers. We arent going into trade impacting producers, for example matters like producers having their inventions stolen, or their investment nationalized, to name a few examples.. -
You can choose to look after your metallurgist who become obsolete as a laborers but I'm sure they are amazing people. You might be worried for becoming communist or welfare state though.
You can choose to limit trade and other freedoms so you can artificially keep metallurgists at work so you don't have to share what you have with them without exchanging something. This can help you can feel good about not giving away freebies and pretend that this is a meritocracy but suffer from slow progress and other conflicts related in preserving these artificial limits.
You can just choose to leave them to suffer as long as their numbers are not enough to bother you. This one gives you the good life until suddenly it stops doing that if the numbers go up enough.
I guess in this case it was to ignore the "losers" in the system until they become numerous enough to tear down the whole system. A lot of people who vote for obvious frauds and outright fascists(I'm not talking about USA, but in general) are just anti-establishment who don't mean bad but just want to see the current order teared apart at any price.
who don't mean bad but just want to see the current order teared apart at any price.
That sounds like a terribly bad intention to me. Significant destruction of social order leads to either authoritarianism or anarchy. Neither are even remotely desirable. The only sane path to deep, lasting, but also healthy change is to systematically work on each specific sector - only dismantling while building something better at the same time. Otherwise you are just an agent of suffering. This pathological egoism does not qualify, even remotely, as "don't mean bad".
I will accept this premise of "choice" with 1 condition.
I will personally advocate for tariffs at 0% worldwide in 2030, if in the interim, ALL permits required to have or work as :
- an accredited university
- work in national security,
- or in university professors (economists!),
- accountant
- lawyer
- pharmacist
- insurance brokers
- any other white-collar profession, etc
Are rescinded. All of them.
So, anyone from abroad can open a university tomorrow, and get student loans, grants etc money. Or, anyone from china can come and become an accountant, if E&Y wants to hire them , either remotely, or in person. Up to E&Y.
Yes, those in person workers would use temporary (seasonal visas) for those jobs. So someone from China can come and teach econometrics at Stanford if Stanford wishes to hire them for 8 months (the undergrad season). Or someone can start a new Stanford in Bangalore, or whatever.
In other words. You don't need a license or some kind of permit to practice as a professor, or at a desk job at Raytheon.
Do you accept ?
My point. White collars are are protected by the state.
In the real world, i've come to learn that "free trade" doesnt actually mean "unrestricted free trade" .
Its just an excellent sleight of hand to say "free trade" when in the real world, the position you actually advocate is to sacrifice the have nots, while leaving the elites untouched
Another interesting stat is that they live longer on average than US people.
And until recently, men retired at 60 and women at 55 yo.
It was common to see people working from 7 or 8 am to 8 or 10pm in my office, though with a 2 hour lunch break where most people slept.
On average, people tended to look way healthier (at least superficially) on average compared to places I have been in the US. Maybe due to diet and activity level.
If you can't guarantee the expected methodology conformed in collection, bad data in causes bad data out, its worse than no data at all.
Are you trying to say that China doesn't fabricate and lie about their metrics and collection methodology? because I hate to be the one to break this to you, it does and there's a lot of news coverage on it going back over a decade.
https://www.scmp.com/economy/economic-indicators/article/324...
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2023/05/01/why-the-world-is-...
https://dialogo-americas.com/articles/china-withholds-manipu...
What happens when the part time grocery job is automated away?
The answer to that is not very pleasant for consumer economies.
One problem with our information-and-services economy is that it enables a giant proportion of the population to live without any understanding of how anything in the physical world operates. You inhabit a universe of magic, using magic made by other people to provide services.
Eventually the entire country loses the ability to make anything in the real world.
However, for every penny of foreign subsidy benefitting US consumers buying finished iron or steel goods, a US metallurgist is losing a job somewhere.
The US consumers can't bear the prices of US craftspeople anymore. Their purchasing power will drop so much that they would wish they still had the deficit and access to AliExpress. And nobody in the US will want to do factory jobs anymore. Really who wants to screw iPhones together all day every day for minimum wage? The few jobs on that category that are left are done by... immigrants. You know, the ones that Trump is kicking out. The ones that worked long hours to be able to live in the ghetto areas hoping in vain they'll one day benefit from the "American dream".
The reason these jobs are terrible is because immigrants are doing it for wages that would be intolerably low to anyone else.This is also why it's hard to find a decent job in general, our competition is basically cheating!
But if we remove the immigrants, the employers will surely have to increase wages like they were supposed to
Now americans will have high paying factory jobs, and if some goods increase in price that's ok, their wages will let them afford it.
we got to have our cake and eat it too!
Obviously they're missing some key steps and consciousness here in the reasoning, but I feel it's interesting to reflect on in context of how it's almost right -- and surprisingly close to a marxist view of things until it starts assuming things like that individuals have more bargaining power than their employers or that economic agents will always try to set the lowest price they can afford for goods rather than the highest.
So for example they'd believe prices would only go up a little and manufacturing companies would just live with stagnant or reduced profits since they'd have no other choice.
Notice how they have a habit of assuming totally Good behavior from Companies but totally Bad behavior from Immigrants!
I think in context of all that, it becomes more visible both how we could actually resolve this problem other than by just accepting the loss of domestic industry, and what in specific the people falling for this narrative are being hooked on.
And very few Americans are actually unemployed. The disappearance of manufacturing is a process that started decades ago and most people have moved on to bigger and better things. So why would they be making more in a minimum wage factory job? They will be making less and without access to cheap Asian manufacturing they can do even less with it. I totally agree the idea of companies doing the right thing is wrong.
But yes the reasons we're doing better in Europe is that we're not giving free reign to companies and have good welfare systems. When people have less worries about their survival they spend more. Of course to Trump backers this is unthinkable because of 'socialism'. Yes it is socialist which is different from communism.
We do of course have similar problems (housing is a problem too and there is resentment of immigrants)
I think the problems here are less bad though because:
1) We don't have a two party system (except for the UK which is in a similar situation to the US). That means it's not a zero sum game. A loss for one isn't an automatic win for the other. So politics are more focused on the positive than kicking the other down. Also we don't have this powerful singular leader with the kind of power the US president has.
2) Right wing politics is more a religion than anything. Not in a god per se but in the narrative and leader. Its followers like being told what to believe. This works best on the poorly educated. We see the same here but because our education system is better (less difference in quality between poor and affluent areas), less people fall into that trap.
We don't have a two party system (except for the UK which is in a similar situation to the US).
The UK does not have a two party system to anything like the same extent the US does. There are 13 parties with at least one seat in the House of Commons and 15 independents.
Smaller parties look likely to gain a lot more seats in the next election.
But yes the reasons we're doing better in Europe is that we're not giving free reign to companies and have good welfare systems
Historically true, but it seems to be less so.
Its followers like being told what to believe. This works best on the poorly educated.
I think it is not that simple. The poorly educated correlate strongly with the poor, who have done badly in recent decades.
We do of course have similar problems (housing is a problem too and there is resentment of immigrants)
To a great extent in some countries. There are multiple European countries that have parties more extreme than the US right that are growing: AfD, PVV, Fidesz, Rassemblement national etc.
Truck Driver is one of the most popular professions in most states but the end is coming soon: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/01/business/first-driverless-sem... you can imagine that they'll only need drivers that aren't on interstates or for inclement weather.
Teaching kids real fincial literacy and how to leverage derivatives is an approach to solving this problem (most adults can't even grok a check book). Save while you can and preserve and multiply your wealth.
In the typical truck driver world they have zero market participation other than selling their labor and maybe a 401k stuck in money markets or bonds, no derivative strategy and zero clue on what saving for retirement entails or how the money is leveraged in retirement. They do understand that they plan on working until they die but that isn't likely to pan out either.
We have a <100 IQ population living in a 120 IQ world and have created a meat grinder with all these tech and tax laws. You shouldn't have to work for 40 years.
People who lose their job need to take care of themselves.
This feels incredibly simplistic. Taxpayer dollars go into funding tons of research that has led to automation improvements. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get some sort of return on that investment? When the US government negotiates trade deals, the money the country “saves” could go anywhere, to anyone. Why does almost all of it go to companies and not taxpayers? If a company wants to offshore work, why do they get to keep all of the monetary difference for themselves, instead of paying a substantial portion back to the country? Privatize the profits, socialize the costs doesn’t have to be how we allow companies to operate.
“Help themselves” assumes that all the other factors are some sort of unchangeable natural laws, and not laws and regulations chosen. We could choose different rules that more directly returned gains to taxpayers, instead of vague trickle down type benefits.
Taxpayer dollars go into funding tons of research that has led to automation improvements. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get some sort of return on that investment?
But I am getting return on my investments: shipping costs will go down and, as a result, the toilet paper I've ordered online will be 5c cheaper and arrive 2h faster.
Teaching kids real fincial literacy and how to leverage derivatives
That was a very specific skill you named. What are you referring to though? Literally leveraging derivatives on that market or are you being metaphorical?
If the purpose of the country is to support the 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' of individuals, there might be a balance that needs to be re-struck.
Since the 1950s anyone has been able to find empty towns in all directions.
There are some slight variations but most populations across US small towns peaked in the early 20th century.
Ricardo only says big aggregate number go up (with a bunch of caveats). Not for whom within that aggregate. It can (hypothetically) be one person seeing huge gains while every single other person loses a little bit. Or, pick any more-plausible scenario that sees a very-few benefitting greatly while the net for the rest of the population is somewhat negative.
You might be losing as an individual but the country gains.
The country is not an individual.
A country can't be happy, or sad or unemployed. People are.
So who in the country gain ?
There's the risk of this system stop working and that's when the US might have hard times due to being forced to live by its means and have no ability to kickstart its own production when that time comes.
I think the risk is greater than that. A concern is not just a regression to the mean, but indebtedness and the future having to pay up for the spending of the past.
I think a different analogy would be a joint credit card where someone can run up the bill and then die. Like national debt, you can always default, but it will be the survivor that takes the hit, not the dead person that spent their life in luxury.
The trade deficit isn't necessarily a problem, but national debt is. It would be one thing if this money was being invested in growth, but it largely isn't. Most of it funds non-growth consumption.
This is largely a self-made internal problem around governmental prioritization and balancing revenue with expenditure. That isn't to say other countries don't also benefit.
The US is trading future prosperity for consumption today. Investing countries are trading consumption today for future prosperity.
but indebtedness and the future having to pay up for the spending of the past
The debt is denominated USD, the US mint could hypothetically print a trillion dollar note and settle the debts. Doing so would wreck trust in the existing system - so it's not just about the debt, but people tend to gloss over how much control the US has over the debt, so the indebtedness (in USD) is a relatively small factor overall.
Effectively when printing money you reset both the debt and the savings. If your debt is much bigger than savings it becomes a good deal.
when printing money you reset both the debt and the savings. If your debt is much bigger than savings it becomes a good deal.
Huh how? When printing money, you make your ability to pay further down the line even more tenuous. I don't know how people can't see the obvious parallels between money-printing and currency-debasing of the Roman times (which led to the economic downfall of that empire).
The only way to cure a deficit while retaining your trustworthiness is to pay it down one way or another.That requires intense taxation for a few years on the rich and corporations alike, and using those proceeds to pay it off. And if possible, to loot someone's gold reserves or something, although that would destroy your trustworthiness on all other fronts and equate you to Nazi Germany.
.That requires intense taxation for a few years on the rich and corporations alike, and using those proceeds to pay it off.
This is your bias and preference seeping in. Simply put, you need to balance your budget.
The US already has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. Most countries don't rely on them, and instead focus on the individual pass through profits. most European democracies tax the middle class much more heavily through value-added taxes.
And again, European democracies aren't the ideal here when we're talking about balancing the books. Look to the American 1950s and the Clinton Era for better role models.
The US economy still hasn't "rebounded" from the effects of the 2008 recession
This is a true statement lost on many people who don't remember. The chickens coming home to roost are not from the actions taken during COVID but from the 2008/9 bailout. That's when the whole ZIRP regime started and ran for over a decade. COVID added fuel to that fire but, really, the 2008/9 bailout "kick the can down the road" policy is to blame. We're back to the can and out of road to kick it down.
Doing so would wreck trust in the existing system
It would cause immediate hyperinflation. Those notes would go to bondholders who would use it to buy things because holding billions in cash printed by a defaulter isn’t anyone’s cup of tea. So anyone willing to take even absurd amounts of dollars for non-dollar assets is offered absurd amounts. Which means those who didn’t get the helicopter drop find their currency, savings and wages worthless in real terms.
Both burn creditors and ruin credit.
You can see export of government bonds as the last line of defense where the economy failed to produce enough of other instruments to cover the imbalance.
But the trade deficit is mostly a private sector thing. It doesn't stop the government from raising taxes and cutting spending to achieve a budget surplus and eventually paying down the debt.
So the deficit indirectly helps anyone with a 401K, and also allows the government to keep borrowing money.
And hurts taxpayers and anyone who wants to buy stock, housing, or anything else that has been bid up.
You are right that budget deficits are a governmental problem independent of trade.
The key characteristics of a reserve currency are stability and liquidity. If you have these, you don't even need to pay interest.
With properly managed that, being the reserve currency is a win on all fronts. You get to run a deficit because people are happy to trade real products for your paper. People are also willing to loan your paper back to you at more favorable rates. The only downside is if you get drunk and outspend even the inflated demand for your currency. The smart move is to rain in deficit spending if you can't get favorable lending rates.
Blowing up reserve status doesn't help this problem. Then you just have to pay higher and higher interest rates because no one wants your paper anymore
but indebtedness and the future having to pay up for the spending of the past
Who do you expect will hold the US into its indebtedness?
The entire world is powerless to stop Argentina, why do you think the US will be more impacted?
Nobody wants to make loans to Argentina (or within Argentina) payable in the Argentine Peso. This is the punishment.
The punishment of being credit unworthy is an inability to use credit markets.
This means businesses struggle and the government has its hands tied in dealing with economic crises.
Argentina can't use economic stimulus to correct economic recessions. There is no deep demand for the Argentine peso, so stimulus leads to more inflation rather than increased economic activity
Just becuase Trump burnt bridges with the EU doesn't mean that EU member states will gladly allow job losses across Europe's industrial heartland to a country that is supplying a direct competitor (Russia) that has conducted grey zone warfare within the EU
The EU and it's member states are all working on building domestic capacity, and pushing Chinese manufacturers to manufacture WITHIN the EU[7][8], and further diversifying by making FTAs with ASEAN[9][10], Japan[11], SK[12], India[13], etc.
In essence, nothing has materially changed in European policy with regards to China compared to under the Biden administration.
Chinese overproduction is a global issue now, and most major economies and blocs have enacted barriers and will continue to do so unless China removes it's barriers to imports, subsidizes, and technology transfers.
[0]https://ecfr.eu/publication/electric-shock-the-chinese-threa...
[1]https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2025/ho...
[2]https://www.gmfus.org/news/watching-china-europe-may-2025
[3]https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/07/eus-unsustainable-china...
[4]https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2024/html/ecb.blog...
[5]https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13259/hit-by-the-silk-ro...
[6]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-15/eu-econom...
[7]https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/09/19/near-shoring-is-...
[8]https://www.bruegel.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/The%20EU...
[9]https://www.reuters.com/world/china/sweden-propose-eu-member...
[10]https://www.ft.com/content/bee31826-012d-4bb1-a6eb-d6cc0d4ef...
[11]https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
[12]https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/eu-s...
[13]https://apnews.com/article/india-eu-modi-ursula-von-der-leye...
At least Germany and France open factories across the EU. Chinese manufacturers did not until the EU began tariffs actions.
Furthermore, Chinese dumping in solar destroyed Germany's original lead in PV manufacturing, and China continues to force foreign manufacturers like VW to partner with Chinese SOEs.
European nations may as well demand the same as well then.
And Chinese dumping is something all nations are fighting - especially other developing countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Mexico, etc.
[0]https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publi...
The EU reminds me of the teacher's pet going around the playground, telling all the other children that they should follow the rules. But of course, the pet doesn't have a big stick, so nobody really bothers listening to him/her.
And as I mentioned elsewhere, much of this overproduction would go away were Chinese consumers able to dip into their savings if China's social safety net was expanded and the CCP's Reaganesque opposition to "Welfarism" was toned down.
The US used to do the same and will hopefully be sane again in three years.
A lot of people don't understand the CCP mentality clearly. China was once the epicenter of human production, making things the rest of the world desired, from Chinaware to silk to tea. The rest of the world fought wars and crossed oceans to obtain exclusive rights to those goods, while the Chinese dynasties simply sat on their thrones and levied tributes from every farflung nation. The CCP wants to return China to THAT level of dominance, this time with tech, electronics and an addiction to rare raw materials.
sat on their thrones and levied tributes from every farflung nation
You mean, like the US is now doing?
The Chinese tributes were more like payments for the right to trade those goods (which were separate from the cost of goods itself). That's why when the European traders arrived in China, the Emperor simply thought that they were another tributary state seeking protection and trade rights.
force foreign manufacturers
Is it accurate to say that these companies are "forced"? Shareholders make cold, unfeeling, selfish calculations all the time. The shareholders of these companies could simply elect not to do business in China and accept the consequences of diminishing their access to the Chinese market.
Using the word "force" suggests that the largest shareholders of these corporations are victims acting under duress, which they most certainly aren't.
Also services are counted there, so it's likely we're exporting services in exchange for manufactured products.
China for example, sends huge number of electronics and all kind of other consumer goods that Chinese produce by sweating in 12 hours shifts in 6 day work weeks in exchange for imaginary numbers
That's more a function of subsidizes instead of foreign preference for USD.
Chinese median household incomes (Yuan 34,000 or around $4,700) are much too low to spend on most goods at scale[0], and most of the money that could be spent on expanding the social safety net (and thus incentivizing Chinese consumers to spend instead of save) is spent on industrial subsidizes like tax holidays, a regressive income tax system comparable to the US, and subsidizing various redundant but provincially influential SOEs that can't compete with domestic private sector players (eg. traditional Chinese automotive players like SAIC and Chery versus BYD), and this is reflected in Chinese spending data as well as StatsChina's breakdown of spending by urban and rural Chinese[0].
You are going to be dependent on foreign exports if your domestic consumers can only spend around Yuan 4000/$550 a year on transportation and telecom combined. Even factoring for PPP, it is difficult as these metrics are low in comparison to peer countries from a developmental standpoint.
A lot of the "overproduction" that has made Chinese goods globally dominant is a result of that misalignment between consumers and production.
Expanding the social safety net in China would dramatically enhance Chinese competitiveness over the long term, but top level leadership remains explicitly opposed to what they call "Welfarism"[1]:
福利主义典范国家，中产塌陷、贫富分化、社会撕裂、民粹喧嚣，这不乏警示— 防止落入“福利主义”养懒汉陷阱
In countries that use a welfare model, the middle class is collapsing, the rich and the poor are polarizing, society is torn apart, and populism is rising. This is a warning - Prevent yourself from falling into the trap of "welfarism" to support lazy people
[0]https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202501/t202501...
[1]http://theory.people.com.cn/n1/2021/1116/c40531-32283350.htm...
China has a medical debt problem[0], education pricing problem[1], and private sector capital crunch[2] similar to that of the US. This makes it much more difficult for the median household to spend in China because there is an incentive to keep saving.
In isolation an $8,000 EV looks cheap to us earning a salary in the West, but that is still 1.7x the median household income (so half of all Chinese households have even less money to spend). For half of Chinese households, that's the equivalent of your median American household purchasing a Maserati. And healthcare costs can reach the $8k-15k price point in China for critical operations.
The reality is, the median Chinese household is significantly underpaid compared to their peers in Thailand[3] or Malaysia[4] - either incomes have to rise to allow Chinese consumers to consume as well as cover health+education spending, or the central and provincial governments will have to dramatically expand social services in order to cover rising costs.
The Chinese consumer cannot replace the American consumer without an expanded social safety net giving some breathing room to spend instead of saving.
[0]https://www.ft.com/content/4d892cd4-e7ef-446d-85c4-93262a7a3...
[1]https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/high-cost-educat...
[2]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-18/china-pri...
[3]https://www.nso.go.th/nsoweb/storage/survey_detail/2023/2023...
[4]https://open.dosm.gov.my/dashboard/household-income-expendit...
Most expenses an average Chinese worker pays might be unaffected given how self-reliant China is, but in theory at least the wage gap between Chinese and US workers would close significantly this way, even if the gap in living standards do not.
Meanwhile imports of agricultural products and other things into China becomes cheaper, and the cost of food gets lower
Food costs are already dropping in China[0]. That is not what is dampening Chinese spending.
if the CNY properly appreciates relative to the US dollar, that CNY60k ($8,000) EV becomes a CNY 60k ($16,000) EV. The median Chinese wage goes from CNY 34k ($5,000) to CNY 34k ($10,000).
But a critical surgery will still cost $8k-16k nominal (or $16-32k using your purchasing power multiplier) and education spending by households is rising in nominal, and that is what is dampening consumer spending in the middle and lower quartile.
Most expenses an average Chinese worker pays might be unaffected given how self-reliant China is, but in theory at least the wage gap between Chinese and US workers would close significantly this way
But the products which a median American consumer purchases doesn't directly overlap with that which the median Chinese consumer purchases (and vice versa). So it's a moot comparison.
[0]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1446926/china-monthly-fo...
Even with those multipliers, the wage gap between your median Thai and Malaysian household and your median Chinese household is significant, let alone with an American household.
The wage gap cannot be solved until there is a serious expansion in China's social safety net if China wishes to continue to use a production driven growth model.
This is what Japan, Germany, the US before Reagan, South Korea, and much of Eastern Europe did when they reached similar developmental precipices to China today.
China can see a significant jump in living standards similar to that which Poland saw over the past 15-20 years if the social safety net is expanded.
There are benefits to being a reserve currency at the macro-scale, but they are not felt by the vast majority of households, and any attempts at making the CNY a competitive reserve currency would require dramatically reducing currency controls along with increasing the independence of the PBOC from political leadership, and leave the lower tier of Chinese workers open to job loss and outsourcing[0][1][2][3] as low-to-medium complexity industries remain the primary employment generator in Chinese manufacturing.
This is the exact same thing that happened to Thai, Malaysian, and Mexican manufacturing workers during the 2000s when they hit plateaus similar to China today.
Finally, the US's dominant position is the cause of the USD as a reserve currency, not the other way around[4]. Having a reserve currency is orthogonal to having great power status, as can be seen with the rise of China.
A rising tide lifts all ships - the China story will stagnate if a serious effort at helping the bottom half of Chinese does not develop.
[0]https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cfer-202...
[1]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602381.2025.24...
[2]https://sysengi.cjoe.ac.cn/EN/10.12011/SETP2023-0562
[3]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03797-6
[4]https://www.ussc.edu.au/the-reserve-currency-myth-the-us-dol...
the China story will stagnate if a serious effort at helping the bottom half of Chinese does not develop
So 800,000,000 people raised out of extreme poverty is a lie? Sounds like the bottom half is being well taken care of over there.
That said, the majority of Chinese households are still significantly less well off than their peers in other upper middle income countries as stats have shown multiple times.
I don't see why anyone would be so virulently opposed to moving some industrial subsidy spend to expanding healthcare, revamping the current insurance system, providing better quality schools to reduce the cost burden lower tier Chinese households have when spending on education, increasing rural retirement pensions, reforming Chinese income taxes to be less regressive, etc.
Raising household disposable incomes by $2000 a year would help increase GDP growth from 4% to 5% (back of the napkin math) - and that too in a sustainable manner. And this is something that is fairly doable by expanding social services and welfare accessibility. This would also solve much of the overproduction problem that has lead to trade wars globally.
I don't see why anyone would be so virulently opposed to moving some industrial subsidy spend to expanding healthcare...
This is because many media outlets, whether intentionally or unintentionally, promote the 'China collapse theory,' making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from curated information.
Take the FT article you cited earlier as an example. As someone living in China with parents who have chronic illnesses, let me describe what healthcare is actually like here:
My father and grandfather both have diabetes. They use NovoRapid insulin at about 40 RMB(6 USD) per pen, requiring 1-2 pens monthly (totaling 100 RMB, 14 USD). Domestic Chinese brands cost roughly half that price.
My mother and I have hyperlipidemia. Lipitor costs about 70 RMB(10 USD) monthly, while domestic alternatives cost around 10 RMB (2 USD).
China's healthcare system features centralized procurement policies where the government negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies. To have your products included in the insurance formulary and reach more patients, manufacturers must reduce prices.
While this system has some issues (which we could discuss later), nearly all medications—including imported ones—are significantly cheaper in China than in the US.
Two years ago, my grandfather spent his final two weeks in ICU at a cost of 120,000 RMB (16700 USD). Insurance covered 100,000 RMB (14000 USD), leaving us with 20,000 RMB (2700 USD) out-of-pocket.
Regarding insurance coverage:
Rural and urban insurance have different reimbursement rates, but generally cover over 50%. My parents' retirement income is about 4,000 RMB (560 USD) monthly—relatively high for urban workers. In tier-3/4 cities, most retirees receive over 1,000 RMB (140 USD)monthly.
Now examining your cited article: Those two farmers never participated in any insurance programs. Having never contributed to:
- Pension funds (hence receiving only the minimum 150 RMB, 20USD monthly—standards vary by city, e.g., ~1,400 RMB,200USD in Shanghai)
- Medical insurance (400 RMB lowest level, 55USD annually, fixed.), making them ineligible for reimbursements. Rural insurance even allows retroactive payments-coverage begins three months after payment, regardless of preexisting conditions.
While such cases exist, they're exceptionally rare. In my entire life, I've only known two families who didn't enroll in insurance—both were wealthy enough to purchase private coverage.
China has been one of the most significant economic growth stories in modern history, but the policies used to grow from 1980-2019 are differnet from those that China needs from 2020-2060
China is now in the same developmental band as Thailand, Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, etc. And if China does not wish to get stuck in the middle income trap, holistic growth across all income strata is needed - not the current k-shaped economy that has developed.
And this is a fairly mainstream position in Chinese economic academia as well, but policymakers are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
In isolation an $8,000 EV looks cheap to us earning a salary in the West, but that is still 1.7x the median household income (so half of all Chinese households have even less money to spend).
You're looking at China the wrong way. A better way to view it is as two countries - a developed urban one, tied to a developing, rural one.
The latter is currently bigger than the former, so it drives any median wealth metrics down. A lot.
But for the past 40 years, the developing part of it has been shrinking - while the developed part has been growing. On that kind of trajectory, that median divide of wealth is currently where the 60th percentile was a decade ago, and in a decade, will be where the 40th percentile is today.
Where does the median urbanite in China stand, compared to her Thai or Malaysian counterpart?
You're looking at China the wrong way. A better way to view it is as two countries - a developed urban one, tied to a developing, rural one
This is how I am looking at China, and this is ALL THE MORE reason that development needs to be spread out much more equally.
Urban China isn't that much richer either - median urban household income is CNY 43,000/$6,000[0] - so on par with Thailand and half that of Malaysia's.
And rural China is in a worse position - CNY 19,600/$2,700[0]
Ignoring the bottom half of China (urban and rural) is going to set China up for failure long term.
Having well developed cities (in reality a couple megacities that are also 直辖市) but a significantly underdeveloped hinterland and urban underclass will only lead to extended instability.
Furthermore, it isn't that expensive to expand the social safety net in China. The Chinese income tax system is severely regressive and is comparable to the US system, and the provinces and municipalities that generate the majority of growth for China can easily divert portions of their total production to either expanding their own social safety nets or subsidizing those of adjacent provinces.
Just by my back of the napkin math, expanding social services such that it becomes the equivalent of $2,000 per household would automatically add 1% to China's GDP growth rate, and also alleviate the overproduction trade war issue, as that would give significant breathing room to the bottom half of Chinese consumers.
It's just pigheadedness to not divert some amount of spending into education and healthcare.
On that kind of trajectory, that median divide of wealth is currently where the 60th percentile was a decade ago, and in a decade, will be where the 40th percentile is today
Past trajectory cannot be used to predict future trajectory. Even the IMF forecasts Chinese GDP growth to drop to 3% by the end of this decade. It is much more difficult to lift the bottom 50% of Chinese households in that kind of a macro environment.
It is just plain complacency to ignore this trend.
Where does the median urbanite in China stand, compared to her Thai or Malaysian counterpart
On par with their Malaysian or Thai urban counterparts based on HDI[1][2], but based on household income, they are roughly at the same median household income of Thailand, and half that of the median Malaysian household, so worse off than their Malaysian or Thai urban counterparts - and let's be honest, there's a reason you bump into plenty of "Cina" migrant workers doing blue collar work in KL, Johor, Klang, or Penang like bus driving or working as the help at Malaysian Chinese owned businesses, just like how there are plenty of white collar Chinese immigrants in Malaysia.
And if we decide to use a subnational lens as you insisted on your post, we can see that the majority of Chinese provinces are much more deprived than their Malaysian or Thai counterparts, which itself highlights the need for the Central and Provincial governments to really concentrate on expanding social welfare.
[0]https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202501/t202501...
[1] http://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/malaysia-...
[2]https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/table/shdi/CHN+THA/?levels=1+...
But when we compare China to other countries, we do have to consider some unique factors. The cost of living in China is really low, which means that even if people have similar income levels to places like Thailand, their actual quality of life can be better in some ways. For example, China’s “vegetable basket project” keeps food prices super low across the country. There’s no property tax, firefighting services are free, and rural healthcare is cheap—even if it's not on par with what you'd get in big cities.
That said, the government still needs to do more to boost domestic consumption. The current setup is okay, but it’s still nowhere near the living standards in developed countries.
...median urban household income...
You seem to miss the word 'disposable' when you cited the chart and table in[0] you linked to.
China's nominal GDP per capita is already on par with Malaysia's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Does your analysis on the relative standards of living of China's and Malaysia's populations still stand?
It's been more than 10 years since I last visited China. I've been to Malaysia a couple of times not too long ago. From what I see from random social media clips of regular people, their urban standards of living do not differ much.
Also, in the US, infrastructure, education, and healthcare is primarily the responsibility of individual States, so it really needs to be measured on a per State basis. For some of these things, some States deliver high quality at low cost and other States deliver low quality with an order of magnitude higher spending for the same thing. The correlation between spending and results is surprisingly weak. Competency and focus seems to play a greater role.
But, if the system is so good and utopian, why do so many children get shot at school? And why do so many American elected officials have such a poor understanding of the US constitution?
Absolutely no signs of trouble, hey?
To a very large degree what schools turn out is based on the students that come in. It's the home and the neighborhood far more than it is the schools themselves. You get a better result if you put students with other students of like ability and motivation. This works pretty well at the university level, but historically it was used to discriminate and thus doesn't get done earlier. And, likewise, we are very focused on equality even when it comes at a detriment to the students. (Once again, legacy of it being used to discriminate.)
To some extent higher per-student fees are expected in certain areas, most countries with heavily funded education aren't facing the same issues of rural population density. There's a lot of overhead costs to run so many schools.
Then state policies and regulatory capture is the other side of course, all schools need X teaching aid from Y company for some obscene markup...
It's like the majority of us were born to be peasants, so many people are quite happy to give the rich tax breaks for example, as long as their own taxes don't go up. Money's gotta come from somewhere.
It's the same problem in healthcare. We spend a lot of government dollars on healthcare. But when you have thousands of insurers and then boards per state and extremely complex billing, you're going to be putting the majority of your money into not-care.
If we’re looking for contributors to differences in education spending between the US and other countries, those school boards are one place to look. The overhead of administrative staff at thirteen thousand local school districts is significant.
The US also has quite high salaries by international standards, which increases per-capita spending on pretty much anything.
Why are Teacher salaries still so low and teacher:pupil ratios continuing to get worse if we spend so much on education? Why is it that literally the primary thing that education tax dollars should be spent on, educators, is not what it is spent on?
Consider that one of the best states in the US for education, supposedly new jersey, pays it's teachers a MEDIAN of $82k. Starting is above $50k according to teachers.
In pretty much every state, the median teacher wage is equal or within 5% of the state's "living" wage.
Most places require a college degree for teachers. If they don't, that's scary in other ways. But why the hell am I spending $40k on a college degree to make barely living wage for the rest of my life? You know who does that? People who aren't very smart. Gee, I wonder why we struggle to find good teachers.
40% of our nation's teachers have a second job. That's funny, because I assure you that damn near any teacher that actually does their job works twice as hard as most other professional jobs. You don't actually get any time in your day to grade student work most of the time, so you have spend your own personal time to do your job. Every single piece of homework your child brings home is at least an hour of grading for that teacher, and that's just a niche subject or small class size. Good teachers are also running their departments, designing lesson plans, building entire portfolios of tests and work, and none of the promises of technology have done anything to improve these parts of the job. Digitized grade books are pretty good, but now they mean teachers have to deal with the worst parents bitching about their kids getting a bad grade because they didn't study, which is not something the teacher can help.
Playing "world cop" is a net win for America, not a cost it bears.
The problem is really that the two aren't directly linked. If you operate at a trade deficit, you don't need to manufacture at home. But if you can't manufacture at home, you can't build war machines efficiently, so you can't be the world police and ensure the market needed to operate at a trade deficit.
By defunding the military you're pulling the rug out from under yourself in this sense. I would still agree that it's massively inefficient and needs to be fixed, but the working US-World system would still invest a lot of funding into the military.
But "soft power". We traded long term prosperity for the short term ability to meddle in other people's countries and lives.
You're leaving out a large part of the equation, which is that countries can trade with each other in the reserve currency, which becomes a neutral medium of exchange with respect to the parties. The value of holding US treasuries currently is that everyone will accept them. By having the world's reserve currency, the US becomes the owner of the world marketplace. It's not just about trade with the US. I export to the US, get USD which I convert to US treasuries, and now I have near frictionless trades with everyone else in the world.
One huge impact of this over the last 50 years is that the world is effectively lending the US liquidity at the lowest possible interest rate, which the US then extends as credit to American businesses, universities, etc., fueling a boom in industry, commerce and academia.
Another big impact is that holders of US treasuries are strongly incentivized to support and protect America, because as America falls, so does the value of those holdings. Before China declares war on the US, it looks at its huge pile of treasuries that will become worthless at the first shot, and says "maybe not". It also allows the US to affect other countries through its monetary policy--another incentive for others to play nice with the US.
It's kind of boggling how little this is understood, how much short and long-term prosperity the US has created for itself by doing this.
How much public transit and education could that have funded?
Given the current costs for NYC to expand its subway, about 500 miles of track given the current costs per mile.
But that also goes back to the original comment about spending the surplus wisely.
On healthcare, we already pay way more than any other developed nation for far worse outcomes, we're literally WASTING money on it to make some shitheel health insurance CEOs a little richer.
FOH with this woe is us bullshit, boo hoo it's so hard to police the world (something we also overpay for). We could have been taking care of each other the entire time, there is nothing stopping us but lies and attitudes like yours the lies beget.
health insurance CEOs a little richer.
To be honest, I don't even think it's just the people at the top profiting. The whole system is like designed to create as many useless jobs as possible. If I want to get a blood test, I have to do like 4-5 referrals before I can just get my test done. If I want a diagnosis, I have to wait a week to talk with a doctor who is going to push sponsored medication anyways. I'm better off doing the research myself and buying drugs through telehealth service or the greymarket.
You would be better off just having a free market where consumers figure out what doctors/nurses/pharmaceuticals are safe on their own, and you strip intellectual property protections and legal requirements for prescription drugs. It shouldn't cost a million dollars to get an x-ray. It does because there are high legal barriers that allow rent-seekers to creep in.
The problem the US has in regards to healthcare, that the goal of its system isn't to supply its population with the best quality healthcare for the lowest amount of cost — the goal instead is to allow all kind of market actors and middle man to make a profit without the population revolting.
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2024/10/07/taxes-are-not-...
When every fucking time they open a lottery or have a new tax, and promise it will go to the schools, but they defund what's coming out of the general fund to the schools by that exact amount, you can only cry wolf so many times before that doesn't work anymore.
To get this to work anymore you're going to have to create a constitutional amendment or something that the school gets X and there will be no fuck fuck games that they aren't just defunding the schools some other place so they can use it on the next corrupt "construction" project.
This is one of the consequences of the US's self-inflicted burden of the Triffin Dilemma.
First off, this ridiculous notion that the US "gets products and services enabling residents to live beyond their means" is classic ivory tower cope. Yeah, tell that to the average American worker whose real wages have been stagnant for DECADES while housing, healthcare, and education costs have gone full rocket ship. We're not living large - we're drowning in debt while our industrial base gets hollowed out and our cities rot. But sure, keep telling yourself those cheap plastic crap from China is some kind of economic superpower move.
And this nonsense about "imaginary numbers" - spare me. Try telling the Chinese worker breaking their back in a Foxconn factory that their labor is being exchanged for "imaginary" dollars when those same dollars buy real commodities on global markets. The only thing imaginary here is your understanding of how actual wealth transfer works. The Fed's money printer goes BRRR, Wall Street gets bailouts, and the working class gets hollowed-out towns and opioid epidemics.
This whole "trade deficit is fine because we export dollars" nonsense is cope. We get to print monopoly money and trade it for real goods sounds great until you realize it's turned the US into a hollowed-out consumerist wasteland. Our manufacturing base? Gutted. Middle class wages? Stagnant for decades. But hey, at least Wall Street gets to play financialization games with all those dollars floating around overseas, right? The petrodollar cope is particularly hilarious. "Oh but the USD is backed by oil and military power!" Yeah, how's that working out now that the BRICS nations are openly trading in local currencies? Saudi Arabia taking yuan for oil? Russia and China settling trade in rubles and yuan? The entire Global South is laughing at your "reserve currency" while they quietly build alternative financial systems. But sure, keep telling yourself that 1971 was some genius move rather than the beginning of the greatest wealth transfer scheme in human history.
Spare me the "political influence" argument. You know what else gives you influence? Actually MAKING things. The US used to be the arsenal of democracy because we had real industrial capacity. Now we're the ATM of the world. Sure, everyone takes our dollars, but they're laughing at us behind our backs while they build actual industries. China takes our funny money, build world-class infrastructure and tech, while we get... what? A service economy of Uber drivers and baristas? The MMT shills in this thread claiming deficits don't matter are smoking crack. Yeah, it's all fun and games until the music stops. The dollar's dominance isn't some natural law. It's propped up by petrodollar recycling and military bases in 800 countries. But guess what? The BRICS are building alternatives as we speak, and when the world finds a way to ditch the dollar, the inflation tsunami will make the 70s look like a picnic.
And don't even get me started on the "but manufacturing doesn't pay well" cope. Oh yeah, because working at Amazon warehouses or DoorDashing is such a step up from union factory jobs that could support a family on one income? The deindustrialization of America was the greatest wealth transfer from working people to corporate elites in history, dressed up as "free trade." The 1971 Nixon Shock was the original sin that decoupled money from reality. Since then it's been one giant debt orgy where the rich get richer by financial engineering while the country's real productive capacity withers. But sure, keep telling yourself that running perpetual trade deficits while offshoring our industrial base is "sustainable" because we have the money printer.
China now owns our supply chains, controls key industries, and is busy strong arming its way to global dominance. Walmart shelves full of $2 plastic junk don’t make up for the collapse of skilled labor wages. Go tell a factory worker in Ohio that his job loss was worth it because iPhone assembly got outsourced to Foxconn. The "cheap goods" argument is cope for elites who profit from globalization while real wages stagnate for decades.
The average American gets screwed by this system with stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, and a crumbling infrastructure while the elites jet around on private planes bought with Fed-printed junk money. The dollar's reserve status isn't a privilege. It's a curse that's let us paper over our decline with debt instead of making tough choices. Confidence in the dollar is not an infinitely sustainable glitch. When the world finally gets sick of funding our deficits, the reckoning will make 2008 look like a picnic. No fiat currency survives its own abuse. When the reckoning comes, it won't be the bankers and politicians who suffer.
The reality is brutally simple. Decoupling from gold removed all discipline from the system. Politicians could spend without consequence, financiers could gamble with abandon, and the productive economy got outsourced to slave-labor nations while we became a nation of paper-pushers and baristas. Now we're staring down the barrel of $35 trillion in debt, supply chains we don't control, and a currency that's one crisis away from a Venezuela-style collapse. But yeah sure, keep telling yourself everything's fine because some Keynesian academics drew you a pretty graph. The Romans probably had similar debates while their denarius turned to trash and the barbarians gathered at the gates.
The deindustrialization of America was the greatest wealth transfer from working people to corporate elites in history, dressed up as "free trade."
You make it sound like this was a conspiracy, and perhaps it did devolve into that eventually, but this system was introduced at the time in order to deal with the stagflationary crisis of the 70s. Only because things had gotten so bad, did Reagan and Thatcher manage to get the democratic support for making the transition.
Very emotional post.
The 1971 decision didn't solve stagflation it just kicked the can down the road
It kicked the can down the road for half a century. It bought a lot of time. This approach, of betting on a miraculous solution in the future, is deeply ingrained in policy making; it’s not unique to the neoliberal reform. In fact, the next solution could just be figuring out how to kick the can again.
The next phase looks like it will entail gov intervention, by issuing loan guarantees, or by mandating the investment of national savings into specific industries, like manufacturing and energy. Capital misallocation and the return of stagflation will lead to another crisis, but in a few decades from now.
Pegging to gold by itself doesn’t really solve anything, if the overarching system remains based on relentless exploitation by selfish interests. Sooner or later, overdraft facilities will emerge for gold that doesn’t exist; so, the traumatic cycles of boom and crash will be repeated. Not to mention the deflationary dynamic, which will overwhelmingly favour those who already own gold. In general, you can’t de-politicise monetary policy (by fixing its supply), without inevitably amplifying the overarching system.
Once Europe returned to the gold standard, it saw widespread deflation and consequent unemployment, particularly in the UK and Germany. The effects of deflation caused by a return to the gold standard, and related issues in the US and France which accumulated much of world gold reserves, is widely considered a major cause of both the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. Notably, deflation contributed to a rapid trade deficit increase in Germany.
Some light reading:
https://www.cato.org/blog/world-war-i-gold-great-depression
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/did-france-cause-great-depres...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/germanys-trade-surplus-is...
It was a rational strategy that’s getting outdated as China’s economy grew enough that exports can’t ramp up any more.
These "imaginary numbers" are actually claims on future income generated by the United States economy. It is true that they are "imaginary", in the sense that any property ownership is imaginary in a way that a toaster is not. The most common form is Treasuries, which the government then pays interest on and which must eventually be either repaid or rolled over.
So it would be more correct to say that China is trading hard work building goods in exchange for claims on future US income.
China produces more ships in a year than the US. Generates More Power from Hydro than the whole of Africa.
We could dig more -- but that's just on top of my head. Just like how the US was able to help the allies win WW2 by producing more. It will lose a war against China - because of incredible chinese production
How do we maintain global reserve status—what is the cost? Is it one of the reasons why have military bases all over the world? Back in the day, people used to say the U.S. went to war in Iraq because Saddam was going to switch away from the petrodollar. Under your reserve-currency theory, that seems quite possible, no?
Also, the often-mentioned US-EU trade deficit is not that big if you count in services. Which I think should be done in the 21st century. Large parts of the US economy are focused on digital high-value services, and they are "exported" worldwide.
A lot of customer service and telemarketing jobs have gone offshore. Nobody is romanticizing about bringing them back. Same with textiles and clothing. Nobody is calling for a return of sewing sweatshops. So why does manufacturing win elections?
Manufacturing capital is primarily the value of onshoring manufacturing, the labor itself may not be particularly valuable at present, but the ability to repurpose it quickly is valuable. It would take the US much longer to build up the kind of manufacturing infrastructure and capital required to be self-sufficient than it will take China to build up the talent infrastructure and intellectual capital required to replace the US. China has no shortage of intelligent and driven people.
Advanced manufacturing (mainly thinking of semiconductors but there are other areas) is increasing in value with AI development, and has been increasingly valuable with prior digitization. It was a mistake for prior (pre-CHIPS) US administrations to not subsidize it.
There are other good reasons: not everyone in society can be upskilled. You need jobs for the lower and middle class that afford them decent lives. Only having high skill high education jobs and low skill low education jobs leaves people in the middle with limited opportunities for economic mobility.
Tariffs and protectionism tilt the favor closer to attack. In the extreme, a nation that completely refuses to trade can't offer nor take anything beyond spoils of war.
The best national security is for it to be in the interest of the counter party to trade with you rather than attack you.
Sure, but if your biggest export is your country's particular flavor of monopoly money, is it actually in your counterparty's best interests to trade with you?
The best national security is for it to be in the interest of the counter party to trade with you rather than attack you.
This assumes that governments are rational actors. This isn't always the case.
This skill becomes innovation, quality, etc. and before you know it you're not inventing and designing devices for other people to build. You're buying devices designed, invented and built somewhere else.
I would also note that admiring and romanticizing capital over labour IMO is common in the USA than in other countries. I'd guess it's because the rest of the world saw some level of marxist influence that led to the formation of still-existing labour parties in the least, while the USA prosecuted marxism pretty strongly. Beyond how effective this marxist wave actually was in achieving better conditions for laborers, I'd say it at least did generally lead to ideological effects.
The general ideas that there's dignity in all work, that any job should pay a living wage, that money isn't the end all, that laborers deserve recognition, etc— I've noticed all those to be more prevalent outside the USA. Admiring people who make a lot of money with little work, or not working and living off rents, or wealth irrespective of the means to achieve it, etc— I've noticed that moreso in the USA.
So overall, you're right— I'm sure a lot of people in the USA wont actually want those jobs with how little protections labour has and how much people admire earning good money with little effort. Though nonetheless, I also believe there's a sector of the population —perhaps not in HN— that would appreciate those jobs.
[1] https://observer.com/2025/04/apple-tim-cook-china-strategy/
Like all the nonsense about "bringing back coal" when the number of people working in it has been declining for a solid century for good reasons.
If only we bring back buggy-whips, I'll be able to support a family like my pappy did.
Out of all the many industries out there, I don't understand why we keep glorifying and romanticizing manufacturing and trying to "bring it back."
It’s a matter of national security. Look what happened during Covid when we couldn’t produce basic medical necessities at scale.
If you go to war, do you think your adversaries are going to supply you with tanks and medicine?
Modern manufacturing is not like the factories of old. Go to China and tour some modern factories: you’ll be surprised. It doesn’t pay well _in the US, in 2025_ because it’s a dying industry. They could easily rise: manufacturing wages are a tiny cost of the sticker price of anything you buy today. Wages have been rising significantly in China for years with little impact to overall product costs. But that’s because they have a competitive manufacturing industry; no US factory owner is going to invest in top talent for a dying factory that has been uncompetitive for a decade.
It's misguided nostalgia: People recall a time of high wages which co-occurred with certain industries/jobs and strong labor unions.[0]
They (reasonably) want that kind of high earning-power to return... but incorrectly assume (A) the same products/processes are still highly profitable/scalable and (B) that they'll somehow (re-)capture a big slice of any pie without (re-)unionizing.
[0] https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-help-reduce-dispariti...
FWIW, I’m not sure I believe the official numbers, or at least I don’t believe that they measure anything useful. When a French customer buys an AMD CPU or Nvidia GPU that was made in Taiwan, the physical object may never touch US soil, but a lot of money flows in. Did we export a good, a service, or neither?
What about when a Spanish user sees an ad funded by a German company and four different US intermediaries are involved in showing that ad? What if the US companies play complex accounting tricks to redirect the income to a subsidiary in a low-tax jurisdiction like Ireland and then effectively materialize some of the dollars in the US by buying shares in the parent company’s stock but mostly just let the nominally Irish dollars sit in US accounts and let US people own very valuable stock?
(Interestingly, IMO none of this requires that USD be a reserve currency. One could easily imagine the same type of economy where gold earned in Europe in deposited in a vault in the US, held by an account that is nominally Irish, and used as investment collateral for various US or foreign investments denominated in XAU. Or it could be cryptocurrency or pretty beads or whatever.)
https://www.bea.gov/news/2025/us-international-trade-goods-a...
Of course, if you take these numbers and throw them into the USTR’s ridiculous “reciprocal” formula, you don’t even end up agreeing with the sign of the tariffs proposed for a lot of countries.
Also, the often-mentioned US-EU trade deficit is not that big if you count in services. Which I think should be done in the 21st century. Large parts of the US economy are focused on digital high-value services, and they are "exported" worldwide.
This is why, in case of reciprocal tarriffs on physical goods, the US ends up the big winner - they don't apply to digital services, which are a huge part of US exports.
Now the world had slowly been catching onto this fact that they'd been getting absolutely rinsed by the FAANGs who have gotten their populace addicted to their opium and made trillions off of them without contributing anything meaningful back. For the first time, we were seeing digital services taxes - a decade overdue. Brazil now has one in place - great on them. The EU was also planning one, but then the tarriffs came, and suddenly voices are saying they might abandon it. If the current US gov was any other US gov, the obvious conclusion would be that they're using tarriffs as a pawn to prevent the rise of digital service taxes.
Obviously, in the current timeline this wasn't the main reason. But there's no way Mark, Satya, Jeff and Tim haven't been whispering into big leader's ear just how "unfair" these DSTs are.
- Trumpism might be a massive blow to American culture exports (which are also the digital services exports)
- the world is getting less secure, more "interesting" in the chinese proverb sense
- the trade deficit is related to decline in the middle class and manufacturing
Up until now it was a fairly harmless political distortion. I suspect in the past we maybe had some executives who themselves bought into it but they took input from folks more educated on the matter and just let sleeping dogs lie.
But now we have an administration who at least seems to believe it whole heatedly and isn't interested in anyone who is educated on the subject providing input.
Buyer: Yeah I want them. But Fort Knox doesn't have enough gold yet, so I don't have the dollar bills right now.
Fruit Vendor: No problem. Bring me an IOU from your bank that says you're good for it.
(The Invention of Paper Money)
Plus, now you've somehow got to manage price controls on ports and infrastructure...
Although you're right that this is historically a large element of gold exists it won't be accepted as reasoning, and it's not worth bothering on places like HN.
Relatively uniform rural undeveloped farmland titles might work but I doubt it would get the same historical inertia since gold outlasts governments more reliably than land titles.
(I didn't mean the government hands out land titles. The holder of USD uses it to buy assets in the country)
Although it brings me back to, you can see how maybe it was simpler historically for people to just settle in a fungible, transportable, easily dividable hard asset that had essentially as good inflationary properties as anything else they could find.
Many people have suggested alternatives such as units of energy or baskets of goods but at the end of the day there is no perfect unit, dollars being backed by essentially largely threat of imprisonment if you don't pay your taxes and scarcity of how many the government decides to 'print' is yet another arbitrary choice of backing.
Imagine having to tell the economy it can only grow as fast as a specific rare metal is mined for money to continue to make sense
This is only the case if you have full reserve banking.
Under gold-backed fractional reserve there is no requirement that there be enough gold to back all the notes in circulation promising gold.
There are certainly problems with fractional reserve banking but gold backing is not a fundamental weak point here. Even IRL if everyone demands real dollar notes there is not enough in the banks and the FDIC reserves to pay it all out on demand if everyone recalled their deposits, they could not even run the money printer fast enough to cover it.
Yet somehow world trade still goes on, despite there being more value of goods in trade than currency than can back it.
Side note for completeness: theoretically all trade of any size happen with even a single gold coin by increasing velocity of money.
Panics and crisises aren't automatically a bad thing. If people are doing something wildly stupid they need to stop and undertake alternative activities. Something has to make them do that; if it is a panic then that is better than persisting with stupidity. Besides, the US still has regular crisises. There is one every 10 years or so. They just don't see as much upside between them as they used to.
The shortages powered William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic presidential nomination after his "Cross of Gold" speech.
If Trump says something does that automatically make it true in 100 years? No. Politicians aren't automatically right and neither are voters. People get stuff wrong in policy all the time. Popularity and truth are different.
And Wikipedia suggests that most people disagreed with him regardless, he lost the election and the US proceeded to adopt a gold standard. Which still doesn't tell us much about its policy merits I might add.
My point about Bryan is that the gold standard was causing so much pain that he rode his solution to the nomination. That his solution (bimetallism) was terrible helps explain his loss.
It isn't like getting rid of the gold standard has helped the US grow, since then we've have seen them mean regress from being an unchallengeable global colossus to arguably the #2 economy. The government printing money at will and handing it out to asset owners who by rights should be going broke is a component of that.
If you'd like a computer metaphor, possibly think a program unexpectedly spitting out a stacktrace. The stacktrace is not, in and of itself, the problem. The problem is the thing causing the stacktrace and the stacktrace is actually helpful for diagnosing. In the case of economies, panics don't draw attention to the problem but actually fix it directly.
...that he rode his solution to the nomination
A lot of nominees around that time thought the gold standard was a good idea, which doesn't prove anything either. The opinions of nominees more than a century ago aren't really evidence. It is an appeal to authority except he wasn't an authority in any meaningful way. He didn't know much about economics and turned out not to represent the consensus of ordinary citizens either.
The US has not actually put leaving the gold standard to a vote as far as I know. In fact I don't think the current situation is a result of big deliberations, at Bretton Woods people thought they were agreeing to a gold standard and as the US's economy is eclipsed we might easily see a rethink of the global trade system where it comes back.
Imagine having to tell the economy it can only grow as fast as a specific rare metal is mined for money to continue to make sense.
It makes intuitive sense that the gold standard would have limited economic activity, but did it actually do? If the gold standard had been constricting economic activity, one would expect GDP growth to have accelerated after the gold standard was eliminated, but as far as I can tell that didn't happen.
The US isn’t forcing anyone else to use USD.
I disagree. The petrodollar is a thing.
Are Canada and Russia and Iran only accept USD for their oil sales?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/08231...
all USD transactions go through US institutions regardless of where those transacting partners are located.
Do they? It is my understanding that the (originally London based) Eurodollar market deals in USD without US treasury oversight.
As will Hong Kong soon.
You can open up an USD account in maybe Zambia and transfer funds to another USD account in Dubai without it ever touching the US financial system.
Infact one of the most interesting/scary incidents for the US dollar was China selling USD denominated bonds and getting almost the same rate as the US government gets, which essentially means China can compete for USD with US government.
The implications of this is that if CHina wants, they now have another level to compete with the US. They can now issue USD denominated debt along the yield curve in areas where it would hurt the US hte most.
In the short term that is the frond end of the yield curve(short term under a year) where the US has to roll about $8 Trillion in debt over the next year.
With China competing by offering bonds here they will force up the interest rate the US has to pay pushing yields up with is the exact opposite of what Trump has publicly stated that he wants and making the US's already large fiscal deficit an even larger problem.
Its Western assumption that China wants to escape the USD reserve currency.
Nah, they have a lot of them, they don't want their value to drop.
What the world wants is to escape (at least in the medium term) is the US oversight that forces the USA's enemies to be everyone else's enemies.
From what I can tell, they are going to use (are using) Hong Kong as a ex-USA location to price and trade USD - modeled on the Eurodollar. With a lot of trade-with-China being settled in their e-CNY CBDC.
As a poster alluded to - the big loss for the USA is the insights into pricing and demand.
Nascent, but that's the trend AFAICT.
USD has mostly been where it is because the alternatives are a lot less appealing:
* CHF - they explicitly would rather not be a strong reserve currency and threaten to print money whenever it starts strengthening
* JPY - they also don't want a strong reserve currency because it would tank their export led economy, plus Japan's debt and economy make the US look very healthy in comparison
* EUR - people remember the Euro crisis, and a lot of the fundamental issues with the currency were just papered over. It wouldn't ake a lot for a new Euro crisis to happen.
* GBP - post Brexit, not that attractive, and not so long ago the whole Liz Truss debacle happened to the currency
* CNY - China flirts with the idea of a reserve currency from time to time but would much rather have the ability to impose strict capitol controls quickly
It's only in the last year or so that USD has started to look very wobbly.
Part of the problem with a currency basket is figuring out which currency basket weighting you actually want to use, and maintaining it. USD just exists.
What is in the SDR is public information, so if you wanted to track them, it's not that hard.
The problem is the contents of the basket changes every 5 years. It is trivial to build your own “emulated SDR” just by holding appropriate amounts of the underlying currencies; but the problem is that in 2027 the IMF is scheduled to change the weights of the basket again; that means you may have to execute some (potentially very big) currency transactions to rebalance your “emulated SDR” to match the real one, and there’s a risk you won’t be able to do so at the rates the IMF assumed when it decreed the reweighting, especially since it doesn’t use spot rates, it uses 3 month average rates.
One option is to treat each edition of the SDR as a separate currency, so you might offer 2022 SDR and 2016 SDR in parallel. Another would be to have your “eSDR” aim to converge to parity with the SDR in the long-run, but allow it to temporarily deviate from parity whenever the basket updates.
SDR issued by the IMF don’t have this problem-whenever the definition changes, they all update accordingly-they are to a certain degree a “fiat” currency. There are two problems though-the first is that only sovereign states and certain international organisations established by treaty are legally allowed to possess them, private individuals and companies cannot. Some would like the IMF to change the rules to allow private ownership, but the US always blocks that because they are afraid of the SDR competing with the USD as the de facto global currency-and the IMF’s rules were architected to give the US a veto over all major decisions. The second issue: if you legally own SDR, you can take them to the IMF and ask to swap them (e.g.) for USD, and the IMF will work with the US Fed to ensure the transaction happens at the current official USD-SDR exchange rate. The problem is, the IMF rules only let holders carry out these transactions under quite restrictive conditions, meaning the SDR isn’t in practice freely convertible with its basket currencies-again, the IMF could loosen those rules, but the US would likely veto it.
Ultimately, some kind of private edition-based SDR emulation, or even a continuous emulation which closely tracks the SDR but temporarily diverges from it around reweighting time, is entirely feasible for a private actor (such as a bank or ETF issuer) to issue. I think the main reason why they don’t, is there just isn’t market demand for it - and an emulated SDR issued by a private actor is potentially at the regulatory mercy of the country to which that private issuer belongs, to a much greater extent than real SDRs would be.
The new thing is that it's really getting worthless comparingly up to the point where it's not interesting anymore to keep any USD and no reason in sight to think it might get better
The rest of those countries that are manufacturing things are far far poorer, and desperate to switch to industry higher up in the value chain, where the US is.
And a half-analysis of the situation, and a halfwit in charge of the country that thinks the trade deficit is like a budget deficit, and the US is throwing away the heart of its economic powerhouse over half understanding of the economy.
It's truly breathtaking. Like watching Brexit on repeat. Just utter economic suicide disguised as strength.
Physical productive capacity is gone. Your global competitor is the de facto production hegemon. Debt has ballooned, and you can’t fund welfare programs. A big chunk of your country’s assets are owned by foreign investors.
But yes, you got a lot of cheap things before the music stopped.
The US has massive productive capacity in things where there's not enough supply and for which we gain a huge profit margin. We do not have massive productive capacity in cheap commodities with very low margins. This is a good thing. Switching our absolutely massive productive capacity into less productive jobs is a huge self-own.
If we have key industries, like food and computer chips, we subsidize them at a tiny tiny relative cost to the rest of the far more productive industries.
A small chunk of our countries t-bills are owned by foreign investors, something like 25%, and the biggest holder, Japan, is something like 3%. We are not in danger of being owned by foreign controllers, especially as long as we keep outgrowing all the other countries by keeping our workforce in highly productive areas instead of less productive areas like sewing T-shirts or assembling consumer electronics.
The biggest threat to our welfare programs, the biggest threat to the music stopping, is refocusing the workforce towards the industries of yesteryear. That's when we will stop outgrowing our debt and when we will face a world of hurt. And it's exactly where the masterminds in control are steering us right now.
running a deficit in physical goods traded
This is not a disadvantage. By your own admission: we send dollars overseas in exchange for goods. We never have to actually send goods of our own. We effectively get them for the price of printing dollars, so effectively free.
This sounds... untenable? too good to be true? a shakey foundation on which to build an economy?
It's effectively a bet on China's part that (1) it's worth it to build their own industrial base and (2) the US won't renege, at least severely, because of the consequences.
Worth noting that the current proposals to further blow up the deficit may actually accelerate this dynamic, regardless of tariffs, because somebody has to buy these IOUs.
With the US, the expected future utility of a dollar is very very high, at least far higher than most other currencies.
Combine that with the need for enough currency to be in circulation to support the size of the global economy, and you might call it a "free lunch" or you might call it "something that only an utter fucking idiot would ever risk giving away."
And it's certainly not the foundation of our economy, not at all. The foundation of our economy is large tech stocks, absolutely monstrously high GDP, massive investment in the future via scientific discovery, extremely robust protections against corruption that let entrepreneurs flourish, and a military backing it all. The "free lunch" is the reward for topping the rest of the world in all those areas.
The fact that, yes, China makes iPhones and America has to import them. However that completely ignores the fact that China is making iPhones for _Apple_ and that whilst I'm sure the Chinese factories make a little profit, Apple's is making much much more on their huge mark up when selling iPhones across the world.
Of course those iPhones are imported directly from China to place of sale, say the UK. But who sees the profit? An American company. _Even though_ those imports would not have counted against America's exports specifically as far as I'm aware.
At the expense of hollowing out domestic industry
This doesn’t seem obvious to me. Trade happens because it mutually beneficial.
The counter factual to reducing trade isn’t that we would manufacture the equivalent amount of goods here and be just as rich.
It’s that we would be poorer. And certain goods would cease to exist, and all of us would have to learn to live with less because it’s simply infeasible to manufacture everything here.
The counter factual to reducing trade isn’t that we would manufacture the equivalent amount of goods here and be just as rich.It’s that we would be poorer. And certain goods would cease to exist, and all of us would have to learn to live with less because it’s simply infeasible to manufacture everything here.
This should be in billboards all over the US. I don't get what is so hard to understand.
Globalization made us all richer and gave us the luxury to pursue new technology.
Self-sufficiency points towards subsistence farming.
The US chose to maintain a reserve USD pegged to gold instead back when they were running a massive trade surplus, but with the collapse of Bretton-Woods the situation in many ways has inverted. In any case, there is increasingly call by many in recent administrations, from Trump's policy advisors to Biden's Katherine Tao to return to the proposals of the ICU. While I don't think Trump's attempt to rebalance trade while still having the US reserve currency will work, I also don't think the Americans are that attached to that prestige to be willing to give it up in order resolve global trade balances and at home. It's not difficult to deal currency freezes with the right friends if you really wish, the real sting of US sanctions has always being barred access to the lucrative US market.
Of course, in the event that the ICU emerges, it would greatly harm the interests of surplus economies like China, Europe, Vietnam, Japan, etc, hence why they largely support the status quo of the US reserve currency rather than changing it, because they've decided that the benefits of surpluses exceeds the benefits of a deficit as a reserve currency.
They can then use these earned dollars to transact with other countries, as the US itself insists they do.
I feel like people who post this have no idea of the "eurodollar"[1] or the fact that it was London (and the EU, at the time, in general) that benefited from popularizing the USD as a reserve currency versus pegging one to their previously decentralized currencies or risking their own currency control.
The US doesn't need to insist on anything. As you yourself stated in the paragraph previous to this, it's a natural side effect of being a large economy that everyone wants/needs to trade with. For the most part, the eurodollar has been a pain in the side of the US as it removes some control over their own currency. In some cases this has helped, as it's tempered certain recessive/depressive effects during downtimes (especially with Europe), but it's also caused inflationary issues that are outside the hands of the Fed. The US (like pretty much any nation minting their own currency) would prefer to have that control over some ephemeral benefits that very few can ever seem to articulate or meaningfully quantify.
The solution is a non-national global reserve, calculated on a basket of national currencies. This was Keynes argument at Bretton Woods, but the US would not have it then, and does not want it now.
The US is getting that now whether they want it or not. The financial confidence in them has been destroyed by the insane off-the-cuff trade tariff jumps and I don't think it will ever recover. The trust in the dollar is gone, it's just not so obvious yet because financial systems don't get changed in a day. It's a slow ship to turn but it's also slow to turn back. Europe is now working on replacing the Visa/MasterCard duopoly which currently backs all our payment cards. It'll take a while but when it's there it will never come back.
Even consumer confidence (and affinity) is now gone and I see a lot of people proudly avoiding American products and services. Tariffs or not, this will only increase the deficit. You can't force people to buy your stuff, not if you so strongly advocate a free market.
Even when there's hopefully a sane president again, the US has shown it's always possible there'll be another Trump out of the blue that screws things over again just from one day to the next. Financial markets can't handle that huge risk. The world is going to move on from trusting the US.
Biden showed a great way to subsidize industry and catalyzed the biggest expansion of building factories in generations, in forward-looking sectors that will reduce the cost of energy for all future generations in the US, providing us security and reducing the chance of another inflation spike like that caused by Russia starting wars that threaten the energy supply.
All that nascent industry is at risk of being thrown away for being too "woke" all so that we can send all the fired NCI cancer research to factories for assembling iPhones. From pipetting to tiny screws may be slightly related job skills, but it's capturing the least possible value from a generation of highly trained workers...
National currency as the defacto reserve currency does not necessarily guarantee a trade deficit. It just happens that way in history quite often, but it is unsustainable throughout the currency lifecycle.
The solution is a non-national global reserve ... Keynes argument.
Keynes was wrong about a great many things which weren't really recognized until after the 1970s. His depiction of Say's law (and the disproving caricature of it which meant nothing), as well as the related actual failures of monetary policy in low interest rate environments, where his theories indicate contradictory outcomes.
I'd like to know why you think this would be a solution. It is not an obvious stance, and in fact the suggestion has been discounted in the past as impossible/intractable for a large number of reasons. First and foremost any system would be fundamentally unstable, and the risk of economic contagion unmitigated, there are cultural, sovereign, and other influences at the intersection of fiscal and monetary policy.
Most of the issues under that proposal are caused by the lack of economic calculation being possible, and growing chaos, and its a problem where the indicators lag behind the wave, so it comes without warning, or possibility to react.
The solution is a non-national global reserve, calculated on a basket of national currencies. This was Keynes argument at Bretton Woods, but the US would not have it then, and does not want it now.
But what does the US want now? It's government's actions are making it more difficult for other countries to trust it for the global reserve currency. If it really wanted manufacturing to return to it's shores, there's other ways to accomplish that without rewiring the global economy: carrots, not sticks.
the expense of hollowing out domestic industryPost WW2, US leadership [deliberately] traded the domestic manufacturing industry [capability] for national security, by making the US dollar the default international trade currency. [This] gave America benefits, but increased the value of the dollar astronomically, which made it impossible to manufacture anything locally ... the logic at the time was that Americans would up-skill en-masse, away from the menial manufacturing jobs [of history] -- but everyone is too much of a dumbass to stay in school [which is required for all of this to work] ... Let's Go Brandon!!
No one else can manufacture USD's, so other countries have to acquire them by shaping their economies to supply goods and services demanded by the US.
They can just buy dollars from the other countries that already bought dollars. A huge amount of trade is dollar denominated, so there's no need to directly sell to the US.
For the US, this is a simple trade off - gain massive political influence (and market intelligence - all USD transactions go through US institutions regardless of where those transacting partners are located), at the expense of hollowing out domestic industry and running a deficit in physical goods traded.
That's just false. There's no magic mechanism to force transactions to flow through US banks.
all USD transactions go through US institutions regardless of where those transacting partners are located
This isn’t true.
all USD transactions go through US institutions regardless of where those transacting partners are located
This is not true. See: Eurodollar - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar
As an example, since this is HN: the US creates a ton of startups. Any country that creates new businesses is going to see foreign investment, which on paper leads to a trade deficit. Essentially, the US exports businesses to the rest of the world, but that is not tallied in a 19th century model for the trade balance of goods. However, it's arguably a better export that commoditized goods, from a margin standpoint.
Overall these graphs change dramatically based on where the exact geographic boundaries are set and how one defines goods/services/investment. Clearly the US hasn't run out of cash and needed to massively print dollars to cover foreign debt, which would happen very quickly if the system were actually imbalanced.
However, it's arguably a better export that commoditized goods, from a margin standpoint.
Importantly, this is the same dynamic that causes economies to move away from manufacturing towards service-oriented economies. Capitalism is going to chase higher margins, but there should be guardrails that mitigate the negative externalities of such behavior. Else we are left with an eroded middle class, lack of supply chain resilience, disproportionate costs for sectors that can’t chase geo-arbitrage, weakened national security manufacturing capacity, etc.
You joke, but wars are won on logistics. Famously, the US military can deploy a Burger King anywhere on Earth within 24 hours.
But not only on logistics. If the "US military can deploy a Burger King anywhere on Earth within 24 hours," but little else, it's fucked. Right now its production base is so addled and weakened that it can't even sustain the wartime production really needed by Ukraine without cleaning out the cupboards. It has only enough missiles to last days in a high intensity conflict, and the lead time for more is years. It definitely can't win in a sustained conflict against China (who has 40-effing% of world manufacturing capacity.
While there are shortages in some areas, I'm not aware of any reports of across-the-board procurement issues. In 2023 there was a shortage of 155mm artillery shells (at a production rate of ~8000/month), but no shortage of small arms ammo, APCs, or tactical vehicles[1]. By February 2025 the US was "manufacturing 30,000 155mm rounds per month" and "the Army is now “on a path” to producing 70,000 to 80,000 rounds per month by the end of 2024 or early 2025"[2].
That might not be enough to sustain a conflict with China if it started today, but it does demonstrate that the US is perfectly capable of scaling up domestic arms manufacturing if they choose to invest in it.
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-...
[2] https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/9/11/a...
For another comparison, Russia is making 250k shells every month, and using 10-15k every day.
At peak levels of artillery use in late 2023, when both sides still had ample stockpiles, the combined total was ~40k shells per day.
So, yeah, it's good that we're ramping it up, but also, no, it's nowhere near fast enough if we want to be ready for a major war.
Speaking more broadly, I think that the proper amount of war-related industry should depend not just on whether the war is ongoing or not, but on how likely it is. Right now I believe that a major war that US will likely need to participate in sooner or later is more likely than not by 2050.
Otherwise largely agreed with your comment.
A sustained conflict with a nuclear power is a no go. The risk of nuclear escalation is too great.
That was the rationale for letting the US military get into this state, but the conflict in Ukraine proved it to be unwise and founded on false assumptions.
Battles may be won on logistics but you can't win a war without a clear and achievable objective. Corporate had a clear objective. Overlord had a clear objective. Take Desert Shield, to give an example of a US-led operation with clear objectives. If you turn up and the Iraqis all say "Fuck this, I'm off home" freeing Kuwait that's success. If you kill half the Iraqi population but they're still occupying Kuwait when your funding runs out that's failure. That's what you need if you want to win a war, clear objectives.
Regarding fixing the infrastructure, I like that idea too, but the government is pretty incompetent and full of grifters so I don’t really think that’s an efficient way to get money to poor uneducated people - most of the money will go to consultants and non-profit directors and so on.
the government is pretty incompetent and full of grifters
Is this based on actual data or just vibes from your interactions with the DMV, IRS, etc.?
Michael Lewis writes well about this. His perspective is that the govt often shoulders the hard problems that lack a clear path to profitability for private industry. He’s studied govt extensively and seems to have the opposite view.
And yeah, engineering a market economy is hard (read: impossible). That's why it's largely a fool's errand to try to do it comprehensively.
And for what it’s worth, your screw argument belies a poor understanding, especially given your example of a jet. Aerospace parts are notoriously expensive because we want to track and manage the entire supply chain. That’s why an airplane screw can cost $1k, when naive people assume you can just pick up an equivalent part at Home Depot.
American lobbying has to date successfully prevented Canada from building up its refinery capacity. Now that Trump doesn't seem to like this arrangement, Canada will likely simply stary refining its own crude.
This will definitely reduce the US trade deficit but may not be good overall for the American economy.
The blanket generalization that all trade deficits are subsidies is flat out wrong. You need to look into the details to determine whether a given trade arrangement is beneficial for the US or not.
And I think you’ll need to elaborate more on your point about the middle class. Depending on how you measure it, people can move from middle class into upper class, but also into lower classes. Your post acts as if class mobility is only in one direction. A bifurcated distribution supports the point that the middle class is eroding.
weakened national security manufacturing capacity,
What products specifically would be a national security concern? The CHIPS act was passed to revitalize semiconductor manufacturing because we rely heavily on Taiwan. From my understanding, we already have a lot of domestic manufacturers for various parts, who are too expensive for the average American but are the main suppliers to the DoD.
The fundamental problem is that the balance of goods flows into the US today. If debts and profits are going to be paid out eventually that will have to reverse. But it's going to be politically impossible for the US to ever send out 5-10% of its GDP in goods. That's the fundamental problem.
If debts and profits are going to be paid out eventually that will have to reverse.
No it absolutely won't. The US exports financialization and technology services which don't show up on a trade deficit chart but do materially make the US and the world richer.
You've fallen into the exact zero sum thinking trap that the parent comment mentioned. If investment causes the overall pie to be bigger, then both sides win with no tradeoff.
The economy is _not_ a zero-sum game. The world economy is _not_ a zero-sum game. Trade very much _is_ a zero-sum game because all the exports of all the countries have to be equal imports in the others -- worldwide imports and exports must net to zero. GP's point, if I understood it -and idk if it's correct-, is that to pay off our debt we'll have to export more than we import, but that the rest of the world will not allow that. The part of GP's argument that sounds like "zero-sum games" is about world trade, and world trade is zero-sum even though the world economy is not zero-sum.
(2) Foreign debt is growing faster than the pie. It's an unsustainable situation. Debt as a percent of GDP has gone from 10% in 2000 to 30% today.
If the pie gets bigger too slowly then I think we still lose.
The author seems to gloss over the economy not being a zero sum game.
The current incumbent of the WH seems to think two things:
1) all games are zero sum games
2) he has authority to sack or functionally wreck any institution he likes without legal recourse.
I would expect in the light of 2) it's possible people write as if 1) is being respected.
The reason for this highly unfair soundbite is that most international trade treaty processes are designed NOT to favour one economy over the others and use "most favoured nation" language to try and put equity on the table. Thats before the US enters the room: My reading online in years past says that every economy which did the TPP said it did better overall when the US walked away from that deal.
Trump and his negotiators are not remotely interested in fixing problems globally, they're fixing their own vision of internal problems. A 10% across the board impost on goods coming in is frankly ludicrous, and the lack of awareness about how VAT/GST models work for importers and exporters in Europe and like economies is pretty stunning: In no way does VAT impose a burden on US incoming goods. it's neutral to all sources. Yet, Trump and his negotiators want to pretend they don't know that.
I'm not an economist or a game theoretician. I'm fine with you correcting my simplified language, but I do not think it was unfairly applied to the current political situation. I'm a simpleton shouting about another simpleton: the one who thinks the only negotiation worth doing is one he "wins" in and for him, winning definitionally means somebody has to lose.
Trump and his negotiators are not remotely interested in fixing problems globally, they're fixing their own vision of internal problems.
Look at their pharma complaints. Pharma companies (many of which are American, but far from all) develop new drugs. In single payer systems, these behemoths have to go against state managed insurance systems, which generally set specific rules for purchasing (maximum price, etc). As these pharma companies WANT to sell in all the markets they can, they accept these rules. As a result, drugs made by them cost, let's say, $100 in those countries.
In the US, where pharma companies are still behemoths, they can divide et impera insurance companies, so pharma companies pretty much impose their prices, leading to absurd stuff like fancier insulin costing $1000.
Now, instead of working to reduce costs in the US, too, Trump & co want to INCREASE the cost of these drugs globally.
Clearly the US hasn't run out of cash and needed to massively print dollars to cover foreign debt
Foreign debt is skyrocketing, with interest payments alone already becoming unworkable. Five or ten more years of this spells disaster, it’s totally unsustainable.
Either something very drastic has to change, or that money printer will have to go into overdrive.
Taxing the US rich redistributes money within the country while the problem (or a perceived problem, depending on your stance) is that US bleeds money across the board.
Foreign investment into USA companies reduces the USA trade deficit but it isn't tracked in traditional methods.
I've heard that foreign investment in real estate generally isn't counted as each country owns properties equally between the two, so it nets out. I wonder if investments into companies is the same?
Foreign investment into USA companies reduces the USA trade deficit
Other way. Foreign investment doesn’t touch the trade account but the capital account. When the company the foreign investor invested in buys stuff, that alters the trade balance depending on what they buy from whom.
by the BEA: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=gX0f
by the treasury: https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent...
It's a little hard to figure out how important it is, but there are "good" numbers.
The US runs a NIIP of negative $27 Trillion. This is a consequence of the trade deficit as the deficit is being financed mainly with this money.
Nowadays we're mostly selling companies and real estate. (though there was a nice jump in bond buying a few years when rates went up)
The article is literally explaining why the US runs a deficit, and economic growth isn't really a part of that explanation.
The oil example is very compelling for import substitution. And the covid example is interesting in showing the savings rate only went up as an offset of gov spending.
I'd love to see a follow up on (a) is it important for the US to increase domestic savings and (b) what are the best policies to do so, and why are they the best?
I imagine blanket tariffs might actually increase the savings rate because they increase the cost of importing all goods when the domestic alternatives are either inferior or more expensive. But I'm curious if they are the best way to achieve the savings goal.
https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-...
What does equal value?
Another way to say that is that the dollar price of gold is correlated with the cumulative inflation of the dollar0 over time.
1900 $1 is equal to 2025 $172
So a single dollar today will buy 1/172 of what it would in 1900. That is inflation. Not an inflation adjusted curve. Just the drastic devaluation of the dollar.
The only thing to do is turn present day savings in capital, it's the only claim one can have on wealth in the future.
(b) Targeting the fiscal deficit usually works well, especially because it's particularly yawning right now. Forced savings (sing-style CPF) work ok too though, although only Singaporeans wouldn't consider that a tax.
only Singaporeans wouldn't consider that a tax
Both forced savings and taxes are legally mandated by the government, but that does not mean that forced savings are taxes. Implementation details matter.
Your money in your own CPF account accumulates interest (at decent/attractive interest rates that generally exceed inflation rates), and is then paid out tax-free to you after retirement.
Additionally CPF funds are managed separately from the government's consolidated revenue. They are administered by the CPF Board and are not used for government expenses in its yearly budget.
In Singapore, the flows are similar, even though the accounts are broken out individually and the top-ups are explicitly done.
In my view, the key is the government telling you what to spend your money on that gives it the shade of taxation. Whether they do so with labeled accounts or not seems more of an implementation detail.
Whether they do so with labeled accounts or not seems more of an implementation detail.
I think this is an implementation detail of huge significance.
In the CPF system, your current contributions pay for your own future retirement. In the Social Security system, your current contributions pay for current retirees' retirement.
The CPF system is sustainable, because it truly is a savings scheme. The U.S. Social Security system is not, because it relies on having a tax base that never diminishes.
The real wealth is not dollars or pounds or whatever, the real wealth is goods and services.
Having access to goods and service is what gives you a better living standard, the money is just a way to exchange them and to store value.
The US has the privilege of having high international demand for its currency, as it is the default global reserve currency. Of course, it incurs some costs, like having to have the most powerful military in the world, being implicitly responsible for making sure navigation waters are free and unimpeded for commerce, and having to try to keep the powder keg from where most of the energy that runs the world comes from, the middle east, from exploding.
In exchange, if you want more oil? more steel? more children toys? more paint? more chips? You can just use your dollars to buy it, and thus making sure your citizens have access to an unimaginable amount of stuff and services.
You can make the world work for you in exchange for dollars. And the world can buy your advanced tech and services with those dollars, and can use those dollars to also buy things they need from other countries without a lot of the complication of multiple exchange rates and/or barter schemes.
And the best part? Your government can run a lot of programs and not care much about raising taxes, because all those sellers after they use part of the dollars for buying stuff from you and between themselves, will usually have some extra dollars that they are going to save for a rainy day. And what is the best way to keep those dollars safe? Well, buying american treasury bonds!
Yeah, you can exaggerate a little bit and end up deindustrializing yourself too much, or go too hard on the consumption frenzy thing and end up with too much trash, environmental issues and household debt. But those are problems that come from the abuse, from the over enthusiastic use of this privilege. And I hope they can be solved (don't ask my how).
The system actually works for anyone involved. Nobody is really interested on this de-dolarization stuff as long as America also doesn't abuse its power too much.
International commerce is a complex machine, and everybody depends on it, everyone know that changing the current system too much would disrupt international commerce for years. Yeah, in the long run, everything would converge to some new equilibrium, but nobody fucking knows what that equilibrium would be, if it would be stable, and crucially, how much time it would take for it to be achieved. As Keynes taught: In the long run we will be all dead.
No country wants their dollar reserves to become dust, especially not china, they sweated a lot to accumulate all those nice treasury bonds.
Having access to goods and service is what gives you a better living standard
I think the good faith critique is access to imports can be taken away by the other country if they want. eg. rare earth metals. So being too heavily reliant on imports without the capacity to produce domestically is less long run access
I would recommend against having sex in a subway station at rush hour, or drinking French Cognac during a job interview, although both are good things.
We can and should discuss how much trade deficit, and the nature of it, but in essence, it is still a good thing if you don't owe to other countries money in a currency you don't control to have this deficit.
For imports to be useful you need multiple suppliers all of whom have to have capacity to expand if one of the supplier lets you down.
Same as in business.
Industrial policy should decide domestic vs external production on that basis.
As the world moves to trade blocs the case for trade between trade blocs falls - precisely because the risk of getting left high and dry increases
If you're concerned about short / medium term timeframes, I've yet to see a broad analysis that showed stockpiling (can even do it privately!) being insufficient.
The real wealth is not dollars or pounds or whatever, the real wealth is goods and services.
You missed one that is arguably more important: ownership of assets that provide security, shelter, and productivity.
Land is a bit more complicated. But even land value is conditional in what you can use it for.
In a more general sense it can also be systems of law (and consistency of adherence and enforcement) that provide the stability and infrastructure for the trade of goods and services. There is a reason that famines are associated with wars: trade in food collapses when stability disappears.
Why would you not if you don't incur in external debt doing so?
you described economic Neoliberalism since 1968, in a nutshell. However, its most important consequence - impoverishment of the low-income and very low-income native population and its inevitable supplementation by emigrants, is destabilizing the very nations who championed it.
Secondarily, militarism (NATO, Israel, Taiwan, Korea, etc.) needed to maintain the pecking order is under great strain and requires considerable counterproductive expenditures (Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Serbia, etc.) just as the native populations age rapidly.
Thirdly, de-dollarization has its own dynamics and is driven by politically motivated economic sanctions enforced by high seas naval interdictions, Russian asset seizures, Chinese exclusionary trade rules, & global criminal gangs like the Kushner's crime family extortion of Qatar in 2017. Rise of BRICs+(25 countries waitlisted), Alt-SWIFT payment systems (BRICS Pay, CIPS) are supplementing USD, the very foundation of the Neoliberal economics.
Why would you not if you don't incur in external debt doing so?
Don't you, though? If you're in a trade deficit with another country that means they end up holding a bunch of your currency. That's basically a debt, right? They have the ability to get goods from you whenever they want, without having to give you any in return (just giving the currency back).
Spending is either on the consumption of goods and services or investment spending on equipment, structures, and intellectual property products. Income is allocated to either consumption or to saving by households, businesses, and government. In a closed economy, spending equals income—that is, the sum of consumption and saving equals the sum of consumption and investment spending.Spending (Consumption + Investment Spending) = Income (Consumption + Saving)
Because consumption drops out on both sides of the equation, investment spending equals domestic saving in the economy. This makes sense: the funds available to invest in productive projects have to come from domestic savers.
It _doesn't_ make sense. How is consumption on the income side of the equation? And even if that somehow did make sense, who is to say the consumption on the income side is the same as the consumption on the spending side such that they balance out?
Saving is deferred spending, meaning money is set aside temporarily. One might think of this like a "cash queue" where the velocity of money slows down for a while. Is the assumption that all saving takes place in banks where banks can lend it out? If I stuff cash in a mattress (saving), how can that cash be used for investing?
A more realistic version might look like this:
(fast)
Income --+--------------+-> Spending --+--> Consumption
^ | | |
| +--> Saving >--+ |
| (slow) |
| v
+---------------------- Investment and Production
EDIT: If I'm asking questions, saying I don't understand, and offering a counter-model, doesn't that count as adding to the discussion? If I'm operating under some misunderstanding, there are certainly others who have the same misunderstanding but didn't speak up.
It _doesn't_ make sense. How is consumption on the income side of the equation? And even if that somehow did make sense, who is to say the consumption on the income side is the same as the consumption on the spending side such that they balance out?
The model they are using is a simplified macroeconomic model. In their model, they are simply saying that when you account for Income--the total amount of money earned across the entire economy--it can only fall into two mutually exclusive buckets. Either the income is related to Consumption (purchasing goods and services), or Saving (as you mention, deferred spending--money in banks, or surpluses in the budget for states etc.--anything that is not in the consumption bucket).
who is to say the consumption on the income side is the same as the consumption on the spending side such that they balance out?
By definition, it has to be. The way national income accounting works is that you can look at things from the perspective of expenditures or income. Since GDP is total output and total income, the total amount of consumption is the same, which is why it drops out in the equation from their model.
I've always disliked economics because it never seems to make much sense. The first equation in the article -- the basis on which the entire premise rests -- just feels wrong.
That's because you're reading an econ 101 equation, similarly how basic physics blogs use spherical cows in equations to simplify them. Most of internet (and even media) discourse about economcs never grows out of this level - it's like having people debate physics of nuclear reactors while their knowledge is stuck on Newtonian level.
Or, as some academic once put it - first year in economics college you learn econ101... and the rest of the years you're taught all the ways that model doesn't apply to real life.
How is consumption on the income side of the equation?
Isn't it just that one person's spending on consumption is another person's income from that consumption?
This isn't good for unskilled labor in rural parts of America, often in swing states. Manufacturing had always been a place for high school grads to have a decent career. Those days are over with, but politically they decide the election.
It doesn't make low value-added goods like TVs, it doesn't employ a lot of people, and it's not growing as fast as other sectors, but we still manufacture more than ever before.
The “crumbling” sensation is because fewer people are employed by it and more people are employed (and earning more) in other sectors.
It doesn't make low value-added goods like TVs, it doesn't employ a lot of people, and it's not growing as fast as other sectors, but we still manufacture more than ever before.
Yes, aerospace and military tech are the biggest manufacturing industries in USA... Quite profitable these days with all these conflicts...
Manufacturing and trucking jobs and the like paid 20-40% above what you could make at Walmart and other big corporations.
I grew up in a rural town and people decry losing jobs to places like walmart. That said, I still think the bread and butter of american business are all the small businesses that are still kind of trucking.
Small construction companies, small engine repair, home repair, mechanics, etc.
It is because we are the only country that prints money at will and forces the rest of the world to use it at gunpoint.
The entire basis of our way of life is essentially printing worthless pieces of paper and digital assets and then literally giving the rest of the world the ultimatum we will kill you if you don't buy and use our currency.
As an American, I want my country to get out of this obviously unsustainable position of debt-based hegemon. The tricky part is doing so while staying strong enough that the rest of the world doesn't (quite reasonably) decide to come take a piece out of us to get back at us for the decades of bullying.
Where else is China et al going to sell all the stuff they can produce via their physical overinvestment that was driven by the “export led growth” mantra?
There is no untapped source of demand anywhere in the world. There isn’t the income. All they could do is produce less and cause their economies of scale to go into reverse.
So instead they sell stuff for accounting entries, which are then used on the asset side of their currency area balance sheet to justify issuing more of their own currency and maintain the circulation.
They could, of course, just buy the time currently used for producing excess exports and maintain the circulation in any case. But that would cause lots of people who are hard of accounting to get very upset.
So instead they continue with financial mercantilism, allowing everybody there to pretend that they are productively engaged, not metaphorically digging holes and filling them back in again.
And that would continue, thanks to those nations supplying the accounting entries and receiving all that nice output, but for somebody getting elected on the US side who actually believes the “lack of saving” line and decided to do something about it. To the loss of the US people.
Quite why he think that saying the US isn’t paying enough for Canadian lumber or Chinese cars is good for anybody is beyond me.
Another win for the Emperors New Clothes.
For instance, I read 300M people are projected to starve to death this year. I’m sure China will happily send some of them any excess food, especially since it’s not going to sell it into US any more.
I think you mean there are not enough US dollars in those markets. There are at least two easy solutions: (1) Intentionally tank the dollar to increase the relative purchasing power of other countries (which they have probably been doing - someone is, but the “who” is a bit opaque). (2) Stop dealing in US currency entirely and switch the world economy to a new reserve currency. I suspect that the Euro and/or Yuan will win that war, though some argument could be made for crypto.
I agree Trump may as well be running around naked at this point. It wouldn’t affect most people’s opinion of his competence or professionalism (domestically or overseas).
Anyway: To answer the question that is the article title: Because the US is (was) rich, and has (had) a high but sustainable standard of living.
There’s plenty of demand for manufactured goods.
This is not true. The US is by far the largest consumer of final household goods at 18 trillion, the EU at 10 trillion, China at 6.7 trillion, Japan at 2 trillion, UK at 2 trillion, India at 2 trillion, the rest of insignificant. You would more of less need to combine every other significant market to match the loss in exports to the US market.
And that won't happen, because of these markets are export driven economies, hence their economies are not structurally designed to suddenly take on mass deficits without mass unemployment coming at hand. Nobody wants to take on the world's surpluses as a deficit country save for the USA, which people in this thread seem quite ardent in convincing Americans to do so, even if they won't support similar policies in their own countries.
Nothing to do with dollars. The system is limited by world income.
China is not going to send anything to people who can’t pay. Otherwise they’d continue shipping to the US for absolutely nothing in return rather than the vague promise they are currently taking
And if they can pay then supply will already have expanded to service them.
There isn’t the income
There's always the real income, the probably is usually just the price rigidity! Most rich economies have no problem with this (the US and the EU can just adjust interest rates, which are comfortably above zero, to accommodate trade balances). Ironically, China is the biggest culprit here: their interest rates are way, way too high given their inflation and unemployment. This is unfortunate, it'd cause a lot less political disturbance if they lowered it, but as a practical economic matter, not a concern to the US / EU. Drop trade barriers, lower interest rates, and everyone will be richer and have a job.
People don’t swap bananas for apples. They sell them for money, and money is retained for its own benefit. Failing to treat money as its own exchange product is the problem.
The world is not run by interest rates. It’s run by monetary flow, retained in its own right for insurance, status and mercantile purposes.
Every day I sell my stuff for promises of being able to get stuff for free tomorrow. It so happens that China has a ferociously large savings rate as a consequence of a terrible social safety net - there's a lot on the literature of this, Brad Setser is a good person to read regarding this.
There is no untapped source of demand anywhere in the world.
I understand what you mean, as in the current structure of governments/economies, there isn't a magic wellspring of demand.
Centralization of wealth starves demand, whether it is in authoritarian governments or an oligarchy/kleptocracy. The US certainly has been doing that for the last 50 years. I think there is a lot of demand and growth that is suppressed by the, uh, overindulgence of the "elite".
The elite care about the gap between them and the plebs. The rich love slaves, and that is their ultimate goal.
There is no untapped source of demand anywhere in the world.
What about global growth and development? There are ~billion living in poverty + general low income for even more.
If India and other high population poor countries achieve what China did over the last ~50 years, while China continue to export while transitioning towards a consumption/service economy, there is another engine for global growth. I'm sceptical this will happen, but the potential source of demand is sitting there.
Then you might have a bit of an "oh shit" moment as you realize that the industrial ecosystem required to substitute those imports would take a decade and a half to build even if your money were worth something, which it now isnt.
Lots of countries collapse due to overreliance on foreign imports. Argentina never recovered from its peak in the 1920s - it just kept bouncing from crisis to crisis. This is looking like an increasingly plausible outcome for the US.
forever beholden to Microsoft Windows, Office, AWS, X, iOS, Google Play,
There is one country that is very much not as beholden as everyone else. Even if everyone calls it a "PPT", it's quite often going to come from WPS.
Though the state of Linux support for things like WeChat/Com is... Not great. But there been a uptick in inquiries about Linux support for a system in the last 2 months so something's lit a fire under some posteriors recently.
It would collapse in value overnight if there were a run on the dollar (treasury holdings were sold off). Then hyperinflation would set in and import dependence would become existential.
Microsoft Windows, Office, AWS, X, iOS, Google Play
One of these things is not like the others.
Current account deficit already accounts for both goods & services. From a more formal perspective, deficts aren't neccessairly bad if they're being routed into productive investments at home, as with many developing countries needing to import machinery, but if it's being used to fund consumption, and it's persistent, then it's considered by many (including the IMF) to be unsustainable on the long term, and highly unstable on the short term.
The current account deficit can be also expressed as the gap between investment and savings, of which must be financed by a combination of private and public debt to external investment, of which around 50% comes from the ever-growing US Gov debt. You're basically going into debt to finance your consumption, and it's a big reason why the US credit ratings have been going down this decade. You won't fix the debt without addressing the deficit, and can you really count for growth to exceed the interest forever? When the black swan comes, then it's gonna hurt alot more than it needs to be.
The US runs a $1T surplus in services.
The total export of services is $1T / $1000B (in 2023):
* https://www.bea.gov/data/intl-trade-investment/international...
It imports $0.7T / $700B worth of services, so the surplus is $300B.
When I sell stuff to someone in the UK, then pounds are fine as means of exchange. When I sell the same someone around the world, then the transaction not being domestic, the cash part that is 1/2 of it (or 1/4 if you want to look at it in a way of transaction = quartet of {stuff,cash,buyer,seller}) and it can be in any currency of any country. It helps if it is the country of the buyer or the seller, but in general it is neither.
I prefer US Dollar to Zongoan Vonga, b/c:
1) USG typically does not devalue their USD much, I don't have to rush to exchange the USD for something else. Or if you want - most others devalue theirs more.
2) USG has not deleted and re-issued their USD even once so far afaik. Other countries do it more often.
3) Everyone else uses USD already. It's easier if it's one currency sufficing for all trade.
4) Often I don't produce oil, and oil is easiest to pay by with USD. Not impossible with others, just more difficult.
5) US banks allow me to hold USD in accounts outside of US. They don't ban me to take the USD in- or out- of US.
6) With USD in hand I can buy lots of stuff US produces, plus I can buy US assets - property, financial assets etc. US does not discriminate against me johnny-the-foreigner much, they are mostly relaxed in that respect. Other countries have all manner of rules that amount to: they'll basically steal their currency off you, or make it worthless to you by making you unable to claim the goods & services that are nominally sold in that currency.
Before people pipe in how US is terrible in this and that - above is all *relative* to all other options all other currencies available. This is from to top of my head, I'm sure I made some error and there is more.
non-US-ian
FYI better not to use silly terms like 'US-ian' as they are confusing and cause problems while solving none. Just stick to the standard 'American', context makes it clear what you mean :)
USG has not deleted and re-issued their USD even once so far afaik. Other countries do it more often.
Interesting side note: they did it once, just after the ratification of the US Constitution. The Revolutionary War was funded in some sense by devaluing the Continental Currency of the time, denominated in "Dollars". You could argue that the "US Dollar" only came to being with the coinage act of 1792, but as a Brazilian I'd say "Potay-to, Potah-to"
1. Consumption doesn't zero out, because domestic consumption in the USA is mostly spent in China, not in the USA. That is what contributes to the trade deficit, not lack of saving.
2. Asset price inflation contributes hugely to the money supply. Where is this in this equation? It's not saving, it's not investment, it's not consumption, it's mind boggling amount of money created from nothing. That asset price inflation is the true source of wealth creation and money supply growth, not bond sales, quantitative easing, or whatever.
3. Domestic saving is in no way equivalent to productive investment in the US economy. Are people keeping money in their mattress considered accounting discrepancies? Companies hoard cash like dragons. What investment in USA? Have you seen much new equipment or new factories? What investment means here is pumping up USA asset prices, it stretches the definition of the word investment to the absolute limit. Domestic saving just ends up as unused savings in an account somewhere, we don't have a good mechanism to put it to actual productive use.
4. The true role of the Federal Reserve is to stabilize and increase asset prices. Money can be easily created by stimulating asset price growth.
5. Funds from abroad don't finance business investment in USA. Investment is a very nice way to put it. They are foreign funds snapping up American real estate and other hard assets. Investment somewhat implies it will lead to economic benefits. Foreign ownership of American assets, companies and real estate is what "investment" means. It doesn't mean growth, it means shrinkage, I think the foreign owned assets tend to lose their value.
Domestic saving is in no way equivalent to productive investment in the US economy. Are people keeping money in their mattress considered accounting discrepancies? Companies hoard cash like dragons. What investment in USA? Have you seen much new equipment or new factories? What investment means here is pumping up USA asset prices, it stretches the definition of the word investment to the absolute limit. Domestic saving just ends up as unused savings in an account somewhere, we don't have a good mechanism to put it to actual productive use.
This is completely nonsensical. Banks (eliding a lot of important details about money and loan creation) use money in those accounts to make loans, and a large percentage of those loans are used for investing in businesses and real estate. "Pumping up USA asset prices", I assume means "buying stocks", which also leads to investment by the companies who sold those stocks. Companies that "hoard cash" don't literally have piles of dollar bills somewhere. Apple, for example has billions of dollars of "cash on hand", but a large percentage of that is actually in bonds and other liquid assets that are investments, and not actually just a useless hoard. They keep pure "cash equivalents" on hand mostly for operations purposes.
Funds from abroad don't finance business investment in USA. They are foreign funds snapping up American real estate and other hard assets.
This is literally what investing is. Where do you think that money goes? To the people who built those buildings and other assets. Do you think they just light the money on fire? No, they build more buildings and other assets to sell to foreign investors. And they are still productive assets in the US, with different ownership.
This is completely nonsensical. Banks (eliding a lot of important details about money and loan creation) use money in those accounts to make loans,
No, banks do have to have a set minimum ratio of the credit to deposited money and that ratio is always higher than one. Private banks create money buy giving loans leveraging the savings at hand with the assumption of there won't be a bank rush. If a bank rush occurs no bank on earth will be solvent.
The saving gap framework helps clarify what trade policies can and can’t do. For example, a free-trade agreement encourages exports, and an industrial policy can foster a re-shoring of production to replace imports. Such policies influence the size and composition of cross-border trade, but the difference between imports and exports is only affected if these policies also change the gap between domestic saving and investment spending.
Is there research on the link between the availability of cheap foreign goods and domestic saving and investment? E.g. would people invest more domestically if they could obtain returns making domestically manufactured goods? Doesn’t the availability of cheap Chinese goods arguably suppress domestic investment? E.g. Apple investing tens of billions into its Chinese supply chain.
I’d also be curious why the EU doesn’t consistently run trade deficits.
It's just that people now want the latest and greatest NOW and are willing to pay monthly rates to do so, instead of waiting a few months for whatever carrier deal there is.
Simple rule of thumb is to subtract $10/mo/line from your phone bill and the remainder is what you’re paying for the phone subsidy. Which is even worse if you don’t actually milk them for a new device every two years.
Functionality sure maybe but competitors are not hot on apples heels or anything.
S M
iPhone 16 Pro Max 3331 8106
Samsung S25 Ultra 3137 9769 [1]
A18 Pro 3582 9089
Snapdragon 8-E 3155 9723 [2]
A18 Pro 3452 8572 [parent link]
S25 Ultra missing [parent link]
SM-S938U 2k-3k 9k+ [3]
[2] https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-list/rating
[3] https://browser.geekbench.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=samsun...
[4] https://browser.geekbench.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Apple+...
The only conclusion you can draw is that the automated assembly will still be more expensive compared to the current manual one.
-american labour is expensive
-because of tariffs (or geopolitics) cheap asian labour unavailable
-investment in automation research
-first Gen automation is expensive
-further research
-2nd Gen automation is price-competitive with american labour
-iterate n times
-Nth Gen automation is price-competitive with asian labour
why doesn't it happen with the chinese supply chain
The idea is that because asian labour is so cheap, there is no real incentive to invest in automation research, because everyone knows it won't be price-competitive for long.
No idea if that is actually true, but that is the argument.
Which means 100% of the money goes to the owner.
As more jobs get automated, this is becoming more and more inevitable anyways.
There have been massive strides in computer vision and planning in the past few years. I think in 5-10 years we'll have robots that can handle nearly any manual labor task.
In 10-15 years, we could be facing skyrocketing unemployment. We'll either see the collapse of society as the economy collapses, or we'll need to increase taxes on the owners to fund UBI.
A typical HN techbro may not care because they're likely in the wealthiest 35 million, but the only way for the top 3 million / 1% to continue growing at the same rate once the bottom 90% have nothing more to lose is to take the wealth from the 32 million between 1% and 10%.
It took 50 years for the bottom 90% to halve the ownership of wealth in the US. Once they are fully tapped out the only way the 1% will continue to increase their wealth is taking it from the 10%. Then the 0.1% from the 1%.
In 10-15 years, we could be facing skyrocketing unemployment
The productivity growth from such new technology would induce more consumption, and induce _different_ consumption. These would produce new work opportunities.
UBI is not necessarily the only solution. And to me, it cannot be a solution from which taxation is utilized to fund.
The productivity growth from such new technology would induce more consumption
Whose consumption? There is nothing impossible about a scenario in which there are about 2-3 millions of owners of fully automatic businesses and/or landlords who, with their total output combined, produce more than enough of anything needed for, or desired by, 2-3 million people. The only problem is that the rest of humanity would have to somehow disappear to not sullen this perfectly harmonious market economy of entrepreneurs (which is ironically quite similar to Adam Smith's naive descriptions of it in his own times), but we do have negative fertility rates, after all.
So there is absolutely a path where the well-to-do will just switch to trading with each other, with aggregate output shrinking to match the shrunk demand, and the rest of people could go and drop dead or whatever they want, as long as they don't trespass on the private property. After all, most of what those losers would have would be their ability to work but it just won't be priced competitively: the fair market price equals marginal costs (which for labour is the price of the subsistence minimum), and if robot maintenance is cheaper... yeah. To quote on of the designers of the shock reforms of 1992 in Russia, "what do you care for those people? So, 30 millions will go extinct. They failed to fit into the market".
So we can either 1. artificially increase the price of offshore-created goods, causing higher prices for consumers and a whole bunch of factories and mills being needlessly built here, assuming it somehow becomes cheaper to build them here than there (The current administration's plan), or 2. give up on the romanticism of factory work and accept it's going to be done where it's cheapest.
Now you can argue that the cheaper prices we have today is even better and worth the lost factory work. But that’s a different argument than saying domestic manufacturing isn’t feasible, because it clearly is and we did it until recently.
Americans will not work for $2-$4/hr which would be required in order for American-made goods to be as cheap as foreign-made goods.
Americans will not pay 3-4X for all their goods to be made in America by people earning American wages.
I guess, to be complete the only other thing that could happen to cause goods to be manufacturable in America would be 3. for the cost of labor in China (and other places with similar textile and industrial capability) to rise to match that of America.
...But they did quite recently, in a time period that is broadly viewed as a very good one.
i dont think the above time period was considered a sacrifice, and the idea that moving the manufacturing back to america would restore that time period is wrong. Because the world has moved on, and productivity has increased so much by now, that it definitely would be a sacrifice if conditions returned back to said time period.
But they did quite recently [accept the quality of life sacrifice]
It wasn't a "sacrifice". It was literally the only life they knew at the time. But going back to it now would be an actual sacrifice for a lot of people.
Running a household on an income of $70k isn't a sacrifice if that's what you make right now. It would be a sacrifice if you make $500k right now and had to immediately start making do with $70k.
Like car manufacturing where the models are more consistent each year with longer cycles to refresh.
I honestly don’t see that as a big issue. It may even be better.
why doesn't it happen with the chinese supply chain
There are already "dark factories" that don't require light or heating because they are fully automated and don't require human presence.
Guess where they are? China.
The factory can go anywhere, in China, in France, in California, in North Dakota.
What benefit is that to the average American citizen?
Or you could bypass all that and simply tax Apple now, despite their factory being in China.
Assuming no change in costs, how does moving its factories from China to Nebraska change anything, for apple, for the US government or the US citizen?
There are hints of a strange energy to your questions, which does not bother me, but I am curious whether you feel hostile to me, e.g., because you inferred from my answers that I probably support a political faction that you regard as the enemy.
Here from the Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/11/4717796/made-in-america-a...
As late as 2014 phones were being made in the US. I believe Nokia in Finland was similar…
If iphones were charged with US labor costs then nobody would buy them
idk, people pay premium for avocado sandwich
a lof of cali folks certainly would do that
Also, people are generally more flexible with sandwiches. If the $10 sandwich I have once a week goes to $20 I might respond be switching to having that sandwich every other week and get something else on the alternate weeks.
That won't work for a phone because I generally replace my phones when the old phone is no longer adequate.
I might get a new phone every 2-3 years. A $1,000 increase in my phone cost is $333-500/yr on average. And honestly if they jump $1,000 I'll probably try even harder to stretch it out another year or more.
A $10 sandwich going to $20 is probably going to be far more impactful to my budget than a phone going up $1,000 in price.
its the same like "health" food product vs industrial food
You can have option for product that got manufactured on US soil to support US worker vs cheaper product that manufactured in Asia because cheaper wages
in fact European,Asian country do this all the time
why the EU doesn’t consistently run trade deficits.
It’s because, comparatively, the EU doesn’t run as massive fiscal deficits, nor is the EUR the primary reserve currency.
Keep in mind that what the fed article is calling a “saving gap” is really more of a fiscal gap that been plugged by US Treasuries.
Wynne Godley explained this all nicely in Maastricht and All That.
Keep in mind that what the fed article is calling a “saving gap” is really more of a fiscal gap that been plugged by US Treasuries.
They're two sides of the same coin, but the levers of control and causality aren't symmetric.
In particular, the US government doesn't have direct control over the savings behaviour of anybody, especially not of people outside the US.
That's why most policies that aim to reduce the US government deficit are bound to either fail or have undesirable negative effect elsewhere.
Or the same situation could reduce savings, if people increasing consumption because the imports are so cheap.
The accounting identity doesn't explain anything other than the mathematical truth that the money needs to add up in the end. Savings are not inherently good, deficits are not inherently bad
I’d also be curious why the EU doesn’t consistently run trade deficits.
Some EU countries probably do, but because they are smaller economies it seems less critical. Combining the EU economies can hide a Spanish deficit within the German surplus fairly easily. e.g. the German surplus are 10 times higher than the Spanish deficit (if I recall correctly).
The EU viewed as a whole, I don't know, maybe due to a very diverse economy, lower overall consumption, lower EU salaries?
But I also think that EU producers are more competitive. The US has a strong tendency towards local monopolies which are bad for export competitiveness.
The US has a strong tendency towards local monopolies
also the problem is US is one of the largest market in the world, if you can conquer US market. you can pretty much do that elsewhere
essentially monopolize an entire world
It's not like Canadian lumber mills conquered the world.
Ford F-series isn't the highest selling car in the world.
Music? Movies? Bleed over from US social media?
There's something to that, I think.
Let me tell you some European view:
You will find MC and BK nearly everywhere. Both selling hamburgers which are invented in Germany. Maybe subway is also kinda wide spread. The other chains aren't as common as you might think. Also all these chains are considered bad for your health and bad to environment, not something we are generally thankful for.
Local charts are not dominated by US music.
Also thanks to Netflix (an US company) we have a lot more European movies today. Nobody likes the same ending where America saves the day, so these movies convert well. US movies have constantly sinking box rates and sales for a while now. The era where everybody watched the new Hollywood movie is long over.
I haven't lost any blood for social media yet. But also here there is a strong and growing sentiment about not trusting the US. Media reports every other week how meta refuses to play with European privacy rules. People aren't using social networks as they used before. And if anything china dominates the market by far.
US Fast Food has not conquered street vendors.
A quick look at a French theater[1] shows 2 American movies, 2 Spanish movies, and 1 French movie. French culture might be dominated by foreigners but 2/5 isn't domination. Movies also have a similar network effect to software where it's preferable to see the same movies as other people to have a talking point.
Social media (WhatsApp included in here) is probably accurate but that's software which I already gave an out to.
There's something to that, I think.
There's definitely something to making a compelling product that takes over a local market being desirable by a foreign market. I just don't think there's something special about winning say the US car market over winning the Chinese car market (There is something special about winning the US/Chinese market over winning the Irish market though -- Size).
However, for many goods that aren't protected by a monopoly a local supplier is going to be able to undercut your distribution costs. That's why Finish McDonald's uses Italian beef[2].
[1] https://www.ugc.fr/films.html
[2] https://www.mcdonalds.com/fi/fi-fi/tuote/pepper-n-bacon.html
Its like being proud in pushing PFOAs or BPAs on whole world. Nobody goes around and celebrates Thomas Midgley Jr. or inventor of fentanyl, do we.
Also, this year any US product is much more avoided on purpose, that goes also for pop culture. I specifically avoid them unless they are top of the market by big margin for given money. orange man achieved what many couldn't do in their whole careers - wake up Europe from its cozy naive and stupid sleep.
The Global Saving Glut hypothesis by Bern Bernanke is an interesting argument about how the glut of demand for US financial assets may have been the major factor in creating the housing bubble in 2008.
If Americans spent less and invested more, they might own more of these investments themselves, but they also wouldn’t have as much stuff, and foreigners wouldn’t have as much money to invest in the US.
Take New Zealand as an example. Last year the major import from NZ to the US was wine.
The major export from US to NZ was military hardware.
Now. Why should the dollar quantity of wine you buy from someone equal the dollar quantity of military hardware you sell them?
There really is no reason at all that the bilateral trade between countries should be balanced and therefore it's not reasonable to think that the aggregate trade with all countries should be balanced or that it would be more desirable if that were the case.
Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. " Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations
Is there not an argument that by the virtue of free capital controls and stronger commitments to free trade, the US is taking the inverse of the exportation of domestic imbalances created by these surplus countries?
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20250313/html/rec...
If US private assets were used to "pay off" US government debt (much of which is owed to US private asset holders), then Americans would be about as rich as they were in 2020 (with about $140T instead of today's $170T)
Because of this, USD 's power is fading and its value slowly plummeting.
One way to limit damages that could come with a weak $ is for the USA to bring back manufacturing capacities. That could be why Biden already put some protectionist measure in place in 2024. (2)
Yes Trump is who he is, but I think the tariffs stuff is part smoke and mirrors to hide that inconvenient truth.
Or as the Super cool ski instructor might say : "If your money is weak and you rely on foreign countries for the majority of your physical stuff, you gonna have a bad time."
(1) https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/saudi-arabia-ends-8... (2) https://publicseminar.org/2024/09/bidens-green-protectionism...
Other POV : one of the side effect of the Ukraine invasion, it's now possible for countries to buy oil in other currencies than USD. (1)
I do not know why you're downvoted but I have listened to some very intelligent people who seem to focus on long term thinking & they feel the SWIFT action against Russia will end up hurting the US more than it hurt Russia. Some may argue it was inevitable for countries to start pulling away from the dollar but this increased the speed of it. The current taunting & unfriendly relations is exponentially ruining the USD on top of it.
While the odds were very low for the US to continue it's dominance in the world into the next century, it sure seems our lack of leadership in both parties is accelerating our downfall.
How does savings become investment spending? Is that through borrowing? Who says borrowing is used for investment? Sure, it's not a great idea to borrow to spend but even corporations sometimes (do stupid things like) borrow to pay dividends which is not investment.
- - -
Now, to your question: this is an oversimplification, but most money that’s not in a mattress somewhere is being lent out (invested.) If I have $500 in a bank account, my bank will turn around and lend my $500 to Bob’s Construction Corp or to Mary for a car loan or whatever. In practice things are a lot more complex, but the portion of money that’s sitting still in a mattress or a vault is fairly small. This means that if I get a dividend, money is moved from one bank account to the next, and the amount of investment doesn’t change.
They were always meant to be temporary.
Printing dollars is often considered a tax on dollar-holders: I print dollars, your dollars become less valuable as my new dollars are circulated into the market. Effectively, this means the global reserve currency's nation-state can impose a tax on the world, instead of just on its citizens.
Though I would like to amend my nonsense from "a citizen" to "actually in the country" I am imagining cutting off foreign governments and oligarchs, not humans that are actually living here.
Basically, if there was a bad war or something, and we needed to cut ties with most of the world. It's better to be left with the goods than the cash. Because cash has no intrinsic value.
Trading partners want to sell us goods for no more than our money. If we have nothing they want to buy, then the result will be a surplus of US currency out there. Parking it in US assets drives the cost of debt way down for the US, and the low rates disincentivize domestic savings.
I read quite often claims that state if services were included, the US would be in a trade surplus.
But in my own rudimentary research, it appears services are in fact included.
Can someone confirm.
0: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade/...
I'm surprised to not see nationalism talked about. The topic of trade deficit seems to be less about economic reasons and more about a political movement towards nationalism.
This can be seen in Europe right now, as well as India and Brazil - where those respective governments have taken actions that strongly favor local/in-country based companies over foreign.
And it appears the current US administration is taking a similar approach.
The history of this is long, going back to the 19th century, but it became a major diplomatic tool after WW2. As the US sought to secure allies after WW2, it used the incredible wealth of its population as a carrot to gain and ensure compliance of foreign nations. Japan is an obvious example: the recovery and prosperity of Japan was the direct result of deliberately utilizing the US domestic market to create demand for Japanese products. The result is well understood today: Japan thrived as it claimed enormous shares of US electronic, automotive, machine tool, and other sectors of the US economy, and the US secured a strategic ally in the Western pacific, where it has hosted vast military resources for going on 75 years now.
This practice has continued unabated ever since, with Trump being effectively the only significant impediment to have ever emerged. In the 1990s the rationale for MFN status for China was "human rights." China was expected to comport with some notion of human rights and, in turn, China would join the long list of MFN status nations. Again, trade with the US as a diplomatic reward for some US prerogative.
All of this is incentivized by the fact that, aside from approval from the US Senate, the US president has the exclusive prerogative to negotiate trade deals with little to no limits on the terms. The president can do this without passing any bills in Congress, allocating any budgets, winning any court battles, etc. Just negotiate a trade deal, get it approved by the Senate, and shazam: you've changed the world. This is further incentivized by "fast track" authority for the executive, which has been US law since 1975.
Finally, this is all lubricated by the ability to ship vast quantities of cargo from distant locales at low cost. This part really spun up in the 1960's with the US driven standardization of containerization. With this affordance in hand, it became feasible to leverage low cost foreign resources on a large scale, and US captains of industry now had a solution to relieve themselves of high costs in the US: labor costs, regulatory costs, taxes, etc.
With industry and government fully aligned based on independent interests, the trend became the dominant factor of global economics: the world literally runs on US trade deficits.
This has been a one way street for coming up on a hundred years now. It isn't terribly surprising that the pendulum is, if not yet swinging back, at least slowing its present direction. I suspect this part might be hard to understand for those that frequent a site like HN, but the bottomless well of US wealth is basically gone now: much of the population of the US lives a sort of high tech subsistence lifestyle, and it's not difficult to imagine the day when their access to credit will effectively stop. That will happen in parallel with the collapse of government finance in the US, which basically creates a new benchmark for the concept of "clown world" with every passing day.
So there is a hard expiration date coming for all of this.
In return you have to give them money, but you can just print that. It costs nothing to get.
You can also just confiscate it. If Trump was really worried about other countries having too many dollars, he could set their balances to zero with the stroke of a pen. They wouldn't trade with him any more after that, of course, and might even launch nukes. But hey, Nixon confiscated the world's gold and got away with it.
People are sending you shit for free.
They aren't sending you stuff for free, they're sending you stuff in exchange for the right to receive future cashflows back from you (i.e. they're sending you stuff in exchange for taking ownership of your financial assets). This isn't necessarily a bad trade for you, but it's far from free.
Previous wars were fought to combat the dropping prices of oil, and to remove influence of the Middle East (e.g. Qatar politics, UAE, Iraq, Iran etc).
Trump is stuck with an industry that hasn't realized what's going on: The new currency is not oil, not tech and electronics, it's energy.
China realized its dependency on oil a long time ago. Take a look at their geopolitical shift in regards to South China Sea expansions to take back control of the trade routes going through the straits in the West and through Taiwan. In parallel, China tries to remove its dependency on oil and coal altogether as much as possible and invests into solar power like no other nation.
Then you look at the Middle East, which is now the replacement for Russia in terms of gas and oil delivery. Russia lost its geopolitical influence on a lot of nations who are now customers of nations in the Middle East, which also removes influence and control of the US, which hurts it too.
Then you have oil trades from Russia to the remaining nations. The ruble doesn't go down further because Russia _forces_ nations to trade its oil and gas in Rubles. They do it for exactly that reason. Why do you think Russia invaded from the East, when from the North and West would have been much easier? What do you think is there? Exactly, the oil fields for which the deal went to Western companies literally two weeks before Operation Z / the invasion.
Geopolitics is meanwhile all about energy. And that's what the US totally slept in and is now paying the bill. But what do you expect being the only nation producing cars exclusively for their own market because nobody else can pay the price to drive a V8 without a catalysator anymore?
The US is a nation stuck in the past, and the pointless hostilities towards surrounding nations won't even help fixing the problem. It would have been a much smarter choice to find reasons for going to war with Qatar or UAE. Just from the perspective of what a "smart bully" would have done. Alternatively investing all budgets into wind and solar energy to make up the losses would have been more future proof, too, and literally the strategy that all other peaceful nations are going for.
Guess the Republicans at the wheel are too busy to throw piles of shit into the crowd, huh? Fear sells easier, after all, I guess.
Countries acquire such assets with dollars. They need to get dollars. The acquire dollars by selling things Americans want, typically physical goods as Americans are very good at making the non-physical kind.
Unfortunately this incentivizes the never-ending march towards de-industrialization in the USA, as countries earn dollars by making things. They get more efficient every year, and more skilled, making more things, to acquire dollars.
That is, I would argue, the single biggest issue animating politics today. It is the argument against globalization, one that has not been solved, and the turmoil in politics across the West with gyrating governments is because voters continue to desire change, and solutions, which no party has yet solved.
Arguing that voters are "stupid" is itself stupid. Voters vote the way they vote. It is on elites and politicians to solve the problem of deindustrialization while maintaining the parts of globalization that are beneficial. If you want to wring your hands and blame the voters, that's fine, but in a democracy you should try to win votes and not call people stupid.
The US has long been playing a game where they give other nations currency that it prints out of nothing on the pretext that this currency can be redeemed for something of real value, but then goes to great lengths to ensure that those foreign nations never actually redeem the currency. This is the 1971 gold crisis in a nutshell. Now the trade deficit in fiat money is just a continuation of this scheme... Backed by even less value. That's why it feels like western economies are being hollowed out. The US economy has been hollowed out and taking its allies down with it.
It's kind of ridiculous how much backlash Trump was getting for trying to do something that is both sensible and necessary. To restore the real economy.
Wanting to improve something and then doing active steps towards damage and destruction because he is a) brainwashed in 80s in Moscow aka russian agent Krasnov; b) arrogant corrupt fool doing insider shorts all the time and taking bribes officially left and right; c) as mentioned above Dunning-Kruger effect example par excellence in the wild.
Using national accounting, one can show deficits are also due to a persistent shortfall in domestic saving that requires funds from abroad to finance domestic investment spending.
But which is the cause, and which is the effect?
Finally, achieving the goal of a smaller trade deficit will likely be painful
While true, this is economics in a bottle. A world war would also "likely be painful", and one would require factories on-shore and a devalued currency to improve ones odds. In a perfectly peaceful and massive and stable vacuum-world, being the global reserve currency and running a trade deficit and "raising the economy’s productive capacity" is much better than the alternative. Things aren't so simple.
What do you import, and from whom? Are your now unemployed working-class political benign or politically violent? Is your productive capacity capable of producing ships and missiles? Sure ad revenue is great, but can it intercept ICBMs?
If all goods are widgets and we're discussing economics without politics, this is completely spot-on. Alas...
deficits are also due to a persistent shortfall in domestic saving that requires funds from abroad to finance domestic investment spending.
But why isn’t it: deficits are due to a persistent surplus in funds from abroad to finance domestic investment, perhaps because the economy produces high returns and welcomes foreign investment?
The whole point of free trade is a win-win game. Someone has stuff/services you need, and you're willing to pay for them. In the end, everyone is happier than before.
There is no fix for the world moving into its own derivative technologies, and simply abandoning increasingly hostile origin markets.
It is a complex situation, and throwing taxes/money at the issue is naive =3
https://www.econtalk.org/the-economics-of-tariffs-and-trade-...
https://www.gmexconsulting.com/cms/de/dunkle-materie-in-der-...
Translation: https://www-gmexconsulting-com.translate.goog/cms/de/dunkle-...
The saving gap perspective tells a contrary story. Investment spending would have been lower if not for the United States being able to borrow from the rest of the world. One can argue that this funding raised the economy’s productive capacity from what it would have been otherwise.
This sounds backwards, I suspect he's being a bit sloppy when he says that. To sustain the trade deficit it was necessary to enormously increase China's productive capacity so that they could build the goods that get shipped to the US. If the US wasn't running a trade deficit the number in the statistics might have been lower, but it is quite likely that the amount of productive capital actually built in the US would have increased and they might have the same amount of real stuff at the end of the day. They could have built a similar amount of production in the US, for example, instead of importing. The accounting identity for that might be a lower number but that doesn't immediately tell us anything about what the real outcome would have looked like.
It is like the situation where nominally China's economy is nominally smaller than the US's, even though as far as the economists can tell China produces more actual stuff. Accounting identities are so basic that they abstract out a lot of important detail vis a vis what an outcome looks like on the ground. Accounting identities always hold, so any situation that can theoretically occur will have a valid accounting identity. It doesn't make sense to rank outcomes by how high investment spending is, it is important to know what real changes would occur. Which identities can't tell us because they are general.
Obviously he is technically correct that he can argue that, but it is insinuating a relationship. This stuff is the bane of central planners, it is nearly impossible to tell in the abstract whether a change in accounting identities was good or bad for productive capacity.
They could have built a similar amount of production in the US, for example, instead of importing.
They could not. If they could've, why wouldn't they? Companies, all else equal, have an enormous preference to colocate supply with HQ or with demand, and both are in the US.
They could not because labor was so much more expensive that if you can use cheap capital but it takes 5x the labor you should make that trade and the world will be so much richer because the labor would otherwise be completely unused. The only way around this is to liberalize migration.
This is preferable! Liberalizing migration would also let us escape the terrible cost disease we've been experiencing, but instead we liberalized goods only and now people are confused about why goods are so cheap but human-intensive services (restaurants, education, healthcare, etc) are so expensive.