In my last few posts, we’ve seen a powerful correlation between America’s trade imbalances and the population density of its trading partners. But how does that work? It seems odd – something that seems highly unlikely to be a factor. And you’ve likely never heard of it before. What you have heard about are a host of other “factors,” things like low wages, trade barriers, intellectual property theft, lax labor and environmental standards, just to name a few. All of them seem like more plausible explanations for trade imbalances than something like “population density.”
The reason population density has such a powerful effect on trade is what it does to the per capita consumption of products. Beyond a certain critical population density, over-crowding begins to rapidly erode people’s need for and ability to use (or “consume”) virtually every product you can think of, with the exception of food. At first glance, you might think that’s a good thing. Everyone lives more efficiently, reducing their environmental footprint and their demand for natural resources. However, the real problem is that per capita employment is tied directly to per capita consumption. Every product not bought is another worker that is out of work. As population density continues to grow beyond that critical level, an economy is rapidly transformed from one that is self-sufficient and enjoys full employment to one with a labor force that is bloated out of proportion to its market, making it dependent on other nations to sop up its excess labor or, put another way, making it dependent on manufacturing products for export to rescue it from what would otherwise be an unemployment crisis.
Let’s consider an example. The dwelling space of the average citizen of Japan, a nation ten times as densely populated as the U.S., is less than one third that of the average American. It’s not hard to imagine why. In such crowded conditions, it’s only natural that people will find it impractical to live in single-family homes in the suburbs and will instead opt for smaller apartments. Now think of all the products that go into the construction of dwellings – lumber, concrete, steel, drywall, wiring, plumbing, carpeting – literally thousands of products. And think of furnishings and appliances. A person living in a dwelling that is less than one third the size of another consumes less than a third of all of those products compared to someone living in less crowded conditions. And what about the products used to maintain the lawns and gardens of single-family homes? Consumption of those products doesn’t just reduce – it vanishes altogether.
Consequently, per capita employment in those industries involved in building, furnishing and maintaining dwellings in Japan is less than a third of that in America. So what are all of those unemployed Japanese to do? Will they be put to work building cars for domestic consumption? Hardly. As you can imagine, the per capita consumption of vehicles by people living in such crowded conditions is impacted dramatically as most opt for mass transit. So emaciated is the Japanese auto market that even Japanese automakers have trouble selling cars there. So now add to the workers who aren’t employed in the home industry those workers who also aren’t employed building cars for their domestic market.
And so it goes with virtually every product you can think of. Japan is an island nation surrounded by water. Yet their per capita consumption of products for the boating industry is virtually zero compared to other nations, simply because it’s so crowded. There’s only so much marina space to go around. Put a town of 100 families next to a marina with 100 slips and it’s likely that every single family will own a boat with a motor and fishing gear. Put a city of a million families next to that same marina and, though the marina is still full, on a “per capita” basis boat ownership has effectively fallen to zero.
Japan’s only hope for employing its badly under-utilized labor force is to use them to manufacture products for export. This is exactly why America’s second largest trade deficit in manufactured goods is with Japan. It’s not so much that we buy too much stuff from Japan. The problem is that Japan buys so little from us in return. It’s not that they don’t want to. They can’t. Their market is so emaciated by over-crowding that they can’t even consume their own domestic production. Why would they buy more from us? The same is true of nearly every major U.S. trading “partner” that is badly over-crowded. Attempting to trade freely – without tariffs or other barriers – is tantamount to economic suicide. It’s virtually certain to yield a huge trade deficit.
Why have I never heard of this before?
Few, aside from those who follow this blog or have read my book, have ever heard of this before. Even if you have a degree in economics, you’ve never heard of it. In fact, you were likely taught the opposite. If you studied economics, at some point you were surely introduced to the late-18th century economist Malthus, and were warned to never give any credence to any theories that revolved around over-population, lest you be derided as a “Malthusian,” which would surely doom your career as an economist.
In 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus published his essay titled “Essay on Population” in which he warned that a growing population would outstrip our ability to meet the need for food, effectively dooming mankind to a fate of “misery and vice.” This led to the field of economics being dubbed “the dismal science,” something that really rankled other economists. Yet, the idea gained some traction until, that is, as years passed and improvements in farming productivity exceeded the requirements of a growing population. The other sciences mocked the field of economics unmercifully, proclaiming that mankind is ingenious enough to overcome any and all obstacles to growth. Economists acquiesced and vowed to never, ever again give any consideration to any concerns about overpopulation.
And so it is today that economists have a huge blind spot when it comes to the subject of population growth. You can’t discover something that you’re not even willing to look at. It’s not unlike the medieval Catholic Church labeling Galileo a heretic for theorizing that the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice versa. Where would we be today if the study of astronomy ended at that point? Where would we be if Newton was mocked for his theory of gravity and the field of physics ended at that point? That’s what economists have done. They’ve turned their backs on what is arguably the most dominant variable in economics.
What does this mean for trade policy?
In the wake of the Great Depression, soon followed by World War II, economists disingenuously laid blame for what had transpired on U.S. tariffs and, eager to put to the test the theory of free trade, promised that it would put an end to such wars and depressions. So, in 1947, the U.S. signed the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, taking the first step to implement the concept of free trade on a global basis. Within three decades, the trade surplus the U.S. had enjoyed was wiped out. In 2018, the U.S. ran its 44th consecutive annual trade deficit which, by the way, set a record in 2018 and continues to worsen.
The problem is that the concept of free trade doesn’t take into consideration the role of population density in making over-crowded nations absolutely dependent on running trade surpluses in manufactured goods, and simultaneously sapping the life from the manufacturing sector of other nations. No amount of trade negotiations can correct this imbalance. No nation that is dependent on manufacturing for export would ever agree to anything that would slow their exports and it’s impossible for them to increase their imports because, after all, it’s their emaciated market that has caused the trade imbalance in the first place. The only way to restore a balance of trade is to force the issue through the use of either tariffs or import quotas. Any trade policy that doesn’t employ those tactics when trading with badly over-crowded nations is doomed to failure and puts our overall economy at risk.
Since World War II, other presidents have tinkered with tariffs in those rare instances when the World Trade Organization has green-lighted their use to correct for some other nations’ trade transgressions. But President Trump is the first president in seven decades to implement a significant tariff program aimed at reducing our trade imbalance with China. But much, much more needs to be done. There are many other nations whose trade imbalances on a per capita basis are much worse, nations like Germany, Japan, Mexico, Ireland, South Korea, Taiwan and a host of others. While many are allies, none of them are “allies” when it comes to trade. All are eager to sustain and even grow their trade imbalances at the expense of American workers and families. All want the U.S. economy to bear the cost for their overpopulation. None want to face their own problems. The U.S. needs to put an end to pointless – even counterproductive – trade negotiations, and do the things that are within our power to force the restoration of a balance of trade.