In my previous post we found that the list of America’s worst trade partners in 2016 – those with whom the U.S. has the biggest trade deficit in manufactured goods – in terms of both total dollars and in per capita terms – was dominated by nations whose population densities were far above the world median. Only two of the twenty worst nations had population densities below the world median.
So what about the other end of the spectrum – the nations with whom the U.S. enjoyed trade surpluses in manufactured goods in 2016? If there is a relationship between population density and trade imbalance, we should see the opposite effect – that the list is dominated by nations with low population densities. Here’s the list of America’s twenty biggest trade surpluses in manufactured goods in 2016: Top 20 Surpluses, 2016
It isn’t as clear as you might expect, and here’s why. The fact that all oil around the globe is priced in U.S. dollars makes oil exporters float to the top of the list, regardless of population density. Those nations with whom the U.S. has a trade deficit in oil are high-lighted in yellow. Of these twenty nations, eleven were net exporters of oil to the U.S. Why does this matter? Because American dollars, aside from being legal tender for purchasing oil anywhere in the world, can only be used as legal tender in the U.S. That means that all those “petro-dollars” have to be used to buy something from the U.S. – primarily two things: U.S. government bonds and products made in the U.S. While eleven net oil exporters appear on this list, only one appeared on the list of our top twenty worst trade deficits – Mexico.
Still, the population density effect is in play, even among these net oil exporters. Believe it or not, Canada (not Saudi Arabia or some other Middle Eastern country) is our biggest source of imported oil. With Canada, our trade surplus in manufactured goods is bigger than our deficit in oil by about $6 billion per year. With Saudia Arabia, trade in oil and manufactured goods was almost perfectly balanced. The same with New Zealand. With Norway, our surplus in manufactured goods exceeded the deficit in oil by over $3 billion.
In addition, there are two very densely populated nations that appear on this list who are not oil exporters – the Netherlands and Belgium. There’s a reason for this also. Both are tiny European nations who happen to share the only deep water port on the Atlantic coast of Europe. They use this to their advantage, buying American exports and then re-selling them to the rest of Europe. Taken as a whole, the trade deficit with the European Union in 2016 was $138 billion, which would rank it 2nd on the list of our worst trade deficits, just after China. The population density of the EU is 310 people per square mile – a little less than China. And, in per capita terms, our trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EU was $274, a little worse than China.
Now let’s look at a list of our top twenty trade surpluses in per capita terms in 2016: Top 20 Per Capita Surpluses, 2016. This results in some small nations floating up onto the list: Brunei (an oil exporter), Iceland, Belize, Guyana (an oil exporter), the Falkland Islands, Suriname, Oman and Equatorial Guinea (the latter two also being net oil exporters). But in terms of population density, both lists are pretty similar. The average population density of the nations on both lists are 213 people per square mile and 197, respectively. Compare that to the lists of nations with whom we have the largest trade deficits where the population densities were 729 (our largest deficits in dollar terms) and 522 (our largest deficits in per capita terms). But let’s look at those lists another way. Let’s calculate the overall population density (the total population divided by the total land area) for the nations with whom we had the twenty largest per capita trade deficits vs. the nations with whom we had the twenty largest per capita surpluses. Those figures are 372 people per square mile vs. 20 people per square mile.
Oh, and by the way, look at the purchasing power parity of both lists. They’re remarkably the same. Clearly, wealth (or wages) play no role in determining the balance of trade whatsoever.
The data couldn’t be more clear. While other factors may come into play in trade, their effects are dwarfed by the role of population density in determining the balance of trade. Free trade with densely populated nations is almost assured to yield terrible results for the U.S. – a huge trade deficit in manufactured goods, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the ruination of the manufacturing sector of our economy. Because of the role of over-crowding in eroding per capita consumption, those nations consume little but are very bit as productive. So they come to the trade table with a bloated labor force hungry for work, and a wilted market, unable to consume our exports in equal measure. Free trade with more sparsely populated nations, on the other hand, is likely to yield the opposite result. Any trade policy that doesn’t use tariffs to maintain a balance of trade with densely populated nations is doomed to failure, as decades of America’s free trade policy has proven.
We’ll look at even more data from 2016 in upcoming posts. Stay tuned.