It is well known that nations with high trade deficits normally have higher interest rates than those with surplus or balanced trade. However, such has not been the case with the USA, which has seen a relentless trade deficit since 1982. Its interest rates have been lower than those prevailing in many trade-surplus nations. Furthermore, these rates fell even as the trade shortfall shot up, generating an interest-rate paradox. This paper demonstrates that, unlike for other nations, the rising trade deficit itself became the cause of lower US interest rates, and this happened because of the world's strong interest in maintaining a high value of the dollar.
On October 23 and 24, 1987, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis hosted its twelfth annual economic policy conference, "The U.S. Trade Deficit: Causes, Consequences, and Cures." This book contains the papers and comments delivered at that conference. A sharp decline in the value of the dollar against major foreign cur rencies began in March 1985 and continued through December 1987. Despite this decline, the U.S. trade deficit experienced considerable growth during this time. Many consider the simultaneous occurrence of these two events over so long a period to be a problem requiring a policy response. The conference addresses this issue. Various papers discuss the cause of the trade deficit, the reason for its size and persistence, its relation ship with other macroeconomic variables, its impact on other industrialized countries, and various policy proposals aimed at reducing the deficit. Session I Peter Hooper and Catherine L. Mann provide an analytical setting for the conference with their "The U.S. External Deficit: Its Causes and Persistence." Their observation that the unprecedentedly large U. S. trade imbalance is striking in both its size and its persistence could well be the subtitle of each of the papers presented. The macroeconomic studies, which Hooper and Mann summarize in their review of the existing literature, uniformly conclude that the deficit has not responded to fundamental macroeconomic determinants-relative U.S. income growth and the dollar's exchange rate-in the way that earlier, smaller U.S.
"Dr. Preeg answers these questions with a clear presentation of the relationship between U.S. trade and financial interests. He argues that the chronic trade deficit and the related buildup of foreign debt can have substantial adverse consequences for the United States, and that early actions are needed to increase the U.S. savings rate and to curtail mercantilist exchange rate polices by some trading partners. Many observers believe we do not need to worry about the trade deficit in this era of high growth and full employment. The Trade Deficit, the Dollar, and the U.S. National Interest is essential reading for anyone interested in a more concerned assessment of the prospects for America's economic future and geopolitical position."--BOOK JACKET.
How should a principled nation which believes in the benefits of mutually beneficial trade respond to the predations of mercantilist trading partners and imbalanced trade? Many argue that the response should be to do little or nothing. Balanced Trade argues that achieving the full benefits of international trade requires an effective response. Although trade deficits provide short-term gains in consumption, these are combined with long-term losses in consumption, innovation, investment, employment and power. Furthermore, market mechanisms do not correct trade imbalances that result from mercantilism, nor do they compensate for the long term shift in production and consumption towards the mercantilist. Balancing trade can make important short run and long run contributions to economic stability and prosperity. In America today, despite the growing evidence that imbalanced free trade is not working, many American economists remain adamant in their promotion of free trade. They are also quick to label actions taken to balance trade as protectionism. The political system has also failed to effectively address the problem of imbalanced trade, and the Federal Reserve has often exacerbated rather than addressed the challenge. We show that the classical economic arguments against mercantilism do not justify doing nothing. Effectively responding to imbalanced trade and mercantilism requires careful selection of strategy in order to achieve multiple objectives: balancing trade while maintaining the benefits of international trade, avoiding unnecessary inefficiencies, and maintaining compliance with international law. One of the best options is the Scaled Tariff. By targeting countries with which the United States has a large current account deficit, the Scaled Tariff would efficiently, legally, and effectively balance trade. It would be applied to all imported goods from trade surplus countries that have had a sizable trade surplus with the United States over the most recent four economic quarters.The tariff rate would be designed to take in a portion (e.g. 50%) of the bilateral trade deficit (goods plus services) as revenue. No particular product is protected; the scaled tariff simply changes the terms of trade between the two countries, much as currency devaluation would change the terms of trade with all countries.
