Why Population Density Drives America’s Trade Imbalance

November 21, 2019

The Problem:

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.

 


America’s Worst Trade Deficits in 2018

October 22, 2019

With little more than two months left in 2019, I’ve finally finished compiling and analyzing America’s trade data for 2018.  Why the delay?  Thanks to the government shutdown early this year, the trade data wasn’t released this year until nearly July – four months later than usual.  And tabulating the results for hundreds of 5-digit end use code products for 165 nations is no small feat.

What we’re looking at here are the deficits in manufactured goods as opposed to services and various categories of natural resources.  Why?  Because manufacturing is where the jobs are.  Yes, there are jobs associated with the harvesting and mining of natural resources but, pound for pound, those jobs pale in comparison to the number generated by manufacturing.

And it should be noted that there are more than 165 nations in the world.  The CIA World Factbook lists 229.  Nearly all of the 64 nations that I left out of this study are tiny island nations with whom, combined, trade represents only a tiny fraction of America’s total.  Also, their economies tend to be unique in that they rely heavily on tourism and their manufacturing sectors are virtually non-existent, if for no other reason than a lack of space to accommodate manufacturing facilities.

It should also be noted that I’ve rolled the results for tiny city-states into their larger surrounding nations – states like Hong Kong, Singapore, San Marino, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco and others.  They too tend to have unique economies, heavily dependent on services like financial services, and mostly devoid of manufacturing for the same reason as small island nations – a lack of space.  There is no room for sprawling manufacturing complexes.

So, with that said, let’s begin with a look at America’s biggest trade deficits.  Here are the top twenty:  Top 20 Deficits, 2018.

It comes as no surprise that China once again has topped the list with a whopping $416 billion deficit – up from $385 billion the year before.  It’s more than four times as large as the next biggest deficit – Japan.  But Japan is less than one tenth the size of China, making the deficit with Japan nothing to scoff at.  Look at our deficit with Ireland.  It’s one tenth that of China, but China is 200 times as large as Ireland.

There are many other interesting observations that can be made about this list:

  1. There’s a lot of variety on this list – nations big and small, rich and poor, Asian, European and Middle Eastern nations.  But there’s one thing that all except one have in common – a high population density.  The average population density of this list is 629 people per square mile.  Compare that to the population density of the U.S. at 92 people per square mile.  On average, the nations on this list are seven times more densely populated than the U.S.
  2. With a few exceptions, these are not poor countries where wages are low.  Half of the top ten nations have a “purchasing power parity” (or “PPP,” a measure of wealth that is roughly analogous to wages) near or, in two cases – Ireland and Switzerland, above that of the U.S. ($59,500).  Only one nation in the top ten – Vietnam – has a PPP of less than $10,000.  So, the conventional wisdom that low wages cause trade deficits isn’t supported by this list.
  3. Two nations on this list – China and India – represent 40% of the world’s population.  On the other hand, there are others that, combined, make up less than 1% of the world’s total.  Naturally, if we have a trade deficit with a big nation, it tends to be really big.  In order to identify the factors that influence trade, we need to factor sheer size out of the equation.
  4. On average, the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods has risen by 166% with this group of nations over the past ten years.  Whatever it is that drives trade deficits has a very potent effect.  The fastest growing deficit is with India, rising by 428% in ten years.  India is the 2nd poorest nation on the list.  Perhaps low wages do play a role here?  On the other hand, nearly tied with India (in terms of the rate of growth in the deficit, not the deficit itself, which is actually larger) is Switzerland, the 2nd wealthiest nation on the list – wealthier than the U.S. – debunking the low wage theory.
  5. It’s often said that America needs to be more productive in order to compete in the global economy.  Yet we see nations like France and Italy on this list – nations notorious for long vacations, short work weeks, etc. – not exactly bastions of productivity.  So if productivity is an issue, why are we losing out to nations who are much less productive?
  6. In 2018, the U.S. had a total trade deficit of $816 billion in manufactured goods.  Of the 165 nations in this study, the top nine deficits on this list account for more than that entire total.  The U.S. actually has a small surplus of trade with the other 156 nations of the world combined.

Trade deficits matter.  As noted above, our overall deficit in manufactured goods in 2018 was $816 billion.  On a per capita basis, that’s a deficit of $2,500 for every man, woman and child in the U.S., or a deficit of nearly $10,000 for an average household of four.  That’s how much poorer you are than if we had a balance of trade.

In my next post, we’ll take a look at the other end of the spectrum – America’s top twenty trade surpluses in manufactured goods.  If population density is a factor, then we should see that list comprised of nations with low population densities.  And if low wages aren’t a factor, we shouldn’t see anything much different than what we saw on this list presented here – a list peppered with rich and poor nations alike.  So stay tuned.  You won’t find this in-depth analysis of trade or the factor that actually drives it anywhere else.


Per Capita GDP Contracts in 1st Quarter

April 29, 2016

Recessions are determined by two consecutive quarters of contraction in the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, or “GDP.”  But what if the GDP grows, but more slowly than the growth in the population?  In that case, your share of the economy has shrunk, as it has for every American, and it’ll feel like a real recession to you.  So that’s how recessions should really be defined – in terms of per capita GDP.

By that measure, the next recession may very well already be underway.  Though GDP grew in the first quarter, though by a paltry 0.5% (as announced yesterday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis), per capita GDP actually contracted by 0.2%, thanks to the population growing at an annual rate of 0.8% in the same time period.

This is the 2nd time in four quarters that per capita GDP declined.  It happened in the same 1st quarter time period last year, falling by 0.2%.  The difference is that last year the economy was already beginning to rebound by the end of the first quarter as we emerged from an extremely harsh winter.  This year, the economy stalled in spite of relatively mild weather and, with the first month of the 2nd quarter already behind us, the economic slowdown appears to be intensifying.

This stagnating of the economy isn’t just a one or two-year phenomenon.  It’s been developing for a long time now.  During the 8-year period beginning with the 1st quarter of 2008 (just before the onset of the “Great Recession”), per capita GDP grew at an annual rate of only 0.5%.  (Check this chart:  Real Per Capita GDP.)  During the 8-year period prior to that (2000-2008), it grew at an annual rate of 1.4%.  And during the 8-year period prior to that (1992-2000), it grew at an annual rate of 3%.  Though the economy continues to grow, albeit ever more slowly, in terms of GDP, per capita GDP has essentially ground to a halt.

This is exactly what the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption would predict – that eventually over-crowding would erode per capita consumption to a point where per capita GDP would actually begin to contract.  That’s exactly what we see happening now.  Though we continue to lean as heavily as ever on population growth to stoke the economy, that strategy has begun to backfire. We are all becoming worse off as a result.  It’s time for economists to wake up to the fact that this blatantly-flawed economic strategy is doomed to failure – that population growth has become a drag on the economy.


U.S. Trade: A Tale of Two Worlds

January 21, 2016

Divide the world in half by population density and the results couldn’t be more different.  In 2014, it grew worse again.  The half of nations with a population density above the world’s median – 184 people per square mile – left the U.S. with a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $669 billion in 2014.  That’s up by $35 billion from the record set in 2013.  It has worsened every year since 2009.

The other half of nations – those with a population density less than the median – yielded starkly different results.  The U.S. enjoyed a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $132 billion with those nations.  That’s down from $147 billion in 2013 and down from the record of $153 billion set in 2011.

Here’s the chart:  Deficits Above and Below Median Pop Density.  If this isn’t proof of the relationship between population density and trade imbalances, I don’t know what is.  The number of nations is the same, but the less densely populated nations give us a $132 billion surplus, while the more densely populated nations leave us with a $669 billion deficit.  Still the U.S. applies the same free trade policy to all nations without any consideration to population density.  Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

One may counter that the results are skewed by the fact that the more densely populated half of nations includes more people than the other half, and that it includes China, which accounts for more than half of the above deficit.  Fine, so let’s analyze the data in some other ways:

  • Dividing the world in half by population is a little awkward, because China falls right in the middle.  It requires including some of China’s people in the more densely populated half, and some in the less densely populated half, and dividing our deficit with China proportionately.  If we do that, we find that the U.S. has a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $464 billion with the half of people living in more densely populated conditions.  By contrast, we have a trade deficit of $72.8 billion with the half of people living in less densely populated conditions.  The trade deficit with the more densely populated half of people is more than six times worse than our deficit with the half of people in less crowded conditions.
  • Let’s look at it another way.  Let’s divide the world’s land mass (not including Antarctica) exactly in half and compare the more densely populated half to the less densely populated half.  Then we have a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $666.8 billion with the people living in the more crowded half of the world, and a trade surplus of $130 billion with the less crowded half of the world.
  • Instead of dividing the world in half, let’s divide it around the U.S. population density – those nations more densely populated vs. those less densely populated.  Of the 165 nations studied, 112 are more densely populated than the U.S. and 53 nations are less densely populated.  The U.S. has a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $701.2 billion with nations that are more densely populated, and a surplus of $164.5 billion with those that are less densely populated.  That’s a difference of $865.7 billion.
  • The U.S. has a trade deficit in manufactured goods with 56 nations.  Of these 56 nations, only four are less densely populated than the U.S.:  Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Laos.

Any way that you look at it, the relationship between population density and trade imbalance just absolutely screams out at you.  But economists don’t see it.  They don’t see it because they won’t look.  They won’t look because of their adamant refusal to give any credence to the notion that population growth has any economic consequences.

Trade deficits, they say, are the result of other factors:  low wages, currency manipulation, lax environmental and labor standards, etc.  Or they say that trade imbalances are merely transitory, that such imbalances will correct themselves as the economies of underdeveloped nations grow.

Proving that trade imbalances are caused by disparities in population density also requires disproving the above pet theories of economists.  We’ll tackle that in my next posts.


Global Economic Growth Slowing. What a Surprise.

August 26, 2015

Though it seems that nearly everyone lately is alarmed by a global economic slowdown – especially in China, no reader of Five Short Blasts or this blog should be surprised.  You may recall that, late last year when I published my annual predictions for 2015, I warned of a faltering economy and, specifically, a slow-down in growth in China from 7.5% to less than 6%.  Last week, China’s growth rate fell to 6.7%, a story that sent global stock markets into a tail-spin.  At the time of my predictions, coming off of a strong 3rd quarter in 2014, virtually everyone was bullish on the prospects for accelerating growth.  Now, everyone is wondering, “What the hell happened?”

What happened is delusional economic growth theory running smack into the  economic reality of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.  On the news this morning I heard that only three countries account for 80% of the world’s economic growth – China, India and the U.S.  Since growth in the U.S. is practically negligible, that leaves China and India – the two most populous nations on earth.  Let’s focus on China.

To be sure, economic growth in China for the past two decades has been phenomenal.  Twenty years ago, China was among the poorer nations on earth.  It was a nation with a population four times that of the United States, but one that consumed virtually nothing.  Corporations drooled over the seemingly limitless growth potential.  Just imagine turning every Chinese citizen into a western-style consumer!  So they rushed in to build factories and infrastructure to make it happen – more development in two decades than the U.S. saw in two centuries.

Now their economy has gone as far as it can go on exports.  China’s continued growth now depends on domestic consumption, and it just isn’t there.  China’s consumers consume more products than ever before – far more – but nowhere near the level that was projected.  What economists have been unable to see is that China’s severe over-crowding caps its economic potential at a much lower level than they thought – at a level that it is very close to reaching, if it’s not already there.  In fact, it may have already over-shot its economic potential, with the export-driven economic momentum propelling it beyond that point.

This is actually good news.  Anything that exposes economic growth theory as the fraudulent pyramid scheme that it is hastens the day when economic stability and sustainability reign, a day when corporate lust for population-driven sales growth takes a back seat to the common good and an optimum quality of life.  But there’s a hell of a long way to go.

 


The End of Growth

October 22, 2014

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/us-cenbanks-markets-policy-idUSKCN0I501120141016

Last week, markets were in a steep sell-off, driven largely by increasing worries about global economic growth.  (See the above-linked Reuters article from last week.)  In the wake of the Great Recession, years of interest rates at zero and money printing by the central banks of the U.S., Europe and Japan have yielded pretty disappointing results.  Europe is once again on the brink of recession.  And Japan has either been in recession or been on the brink for decades.  And slowing economic data in the U.S. is making it look as though we won’t avoid backsliding into recession either.

We’ve all seen cartoons depicting pessimists standing on street corners wearing sandwich-board signs declaring that “the end is near.”  Well, folks, it’s time to face facts.  When it comes to economic growth, the end is, in fact, here.

Let’s begin with a step back – way back – to World War II.  The imperialist ambitions of both Germany and Japan had similar roots.  Both nations were badly overpopulated, short on resources and long on unemployment.  Both embarked on huge land grabs.  In the wake of the war, in 1947, the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade – the precursor of today’s World Trade Organization – was implemented, with the primary goal of preventing such wars by giving Germany and Japan easier access to resources and more access to U.S. markets, thus alleviating the high unemployment that fostered Hitler’s rise to power.

No problem, at first.  Americans had done without for years, with the nation’s manufacturing capacity devoted 100% to the war effort.  There was a lot of catching up to do and Americans’ appetite for goods seemed insatiable.  The economy boomed and the federal government was able to cut spending and whittle away the debt it had racked up during the war.

The infrastructure and economies of Germany and Japan were rebuilt.  Slowly, the new trade regime enabled imports from those nations to erode America’s trade surplus.  First came Volkswagens and a sprinkling of Mercedes and BMW’s from Germany.  Those were followed first by motorcycles from Japan, and then Hondas – pathetic little cars that were painted in paisley and sold as jokes, but they got their foot in the door.  By the early 70’s our trade surplus was gone.  We oscillated between surplus and deficit for a few years.  We ran our last trade surplus in 1975.  Since then, we’ve experienced 38 (soon to be 39) consecutive years of trade deficits.

At about the same time, America’s budget deficit began to grow again too.  It had to, to offset the trade deficit’s drain of money from the economy.  Soon, new terms began to creep into the American economic lexicon:  “redundancy,” “down-sizing,” “right-sizing” and “outsourcing.”  American manufacturers began closing their doors en masse, unable to sustain a profit margin in the face of the onslaught of foreign companies snatching up American market share.

Even with their new-found trade surpluses and manufacturing jobs cannibalized from American manufacturers, the Europeans and Japanese both found it necessary to lean heavily on deficit spending, just as America was doing, to keep a lid on unemployment.  Rising productivity enabled manufacturers to meet growing demand without growing employment at the same pace.

At the end of World War II, the world’s population stood at just under 2.5 billion.  Today it has nearly tripled.  All of this growth has been concentrated in urban areas.  Cities have expanded and grown vastly more crowded, and it’s a fact that people living in crowded conditions consume less out of necessity.  Growth in the global labor pool outpaced the rate at which workers were absorbed into the economy, putting downward pressure on wages.  And that situation grew exponentially worse when China was factored into the global trade equation, growing the global labor pool virtually overnight by 25%.

For a time, government deficit spending, used primarily to fund social safety net programs and other programs designed to supplement incomes and prop up a perception of wealth, sustained consumption and kept the economy growing.  But that tactic has run its course.  National debts have risen to worrisome levels.

Developed economies looked to China to pick up the slack by developing its economy, turning 1.3 billion people who had nothing into western-style consumers.  By that measure, China has been a huge disappointment.  Collectively, they consume a mountain of goods, but nowhere near enough to even consume their own productive capacity, much less to develop into a market for other nations.  Their growth is faltering and it looks like their domestic consumption will settle at the same diminished level as Europe and Japan.

Growth is now virtually dead and all the deficit spending in the world can’t prop it up.  Economists won’t admit that fact and adamantly refuse to give any consideration to the fact that population growth lies at the heart of the problem.  But markets don’t care, and what we’re witnessing is an adjustment to a no-growth world.  Interest rates have fallen to zero.  Bond yields, projected to rise as the economy “recovered” never did, and are now sliding backward to near-zero levels.  Central banks’ hands are tied, left only with thinly-disguised money printing programs to fall back on to provide stimulus to the economy, a tactic that’s already begun to make them nervous about unintended consequences.

The world’s economy is reaching a critical and dangerous point, where the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption begins to take hold in a big way that can trigger an irreversible downward spiral.  People consume less than they’d like for two reasons – because they lack space to make use of products, and because they are simply too poor to afford them.  When the proportion of people in the first condition reaches a critical level, the downward pressure on wages begins to make everyone poorer, accelerating the downward pressure on consumption.  Governments’ and central banks’ resources and abilities to hold this economic force at bay will soon be exhausted.

Economists had better extract their heads from that place where the sun doesn’t shine, and soon, if this economic fate that they don’t understand and are unable to see is to be avoided.  I fear that they won’t.  Growth isn’t always desirable.  Sometimes it’s cancerous.  Left unchecked, population growth will soon present the one challenge that none of them are clever enough to overcome – worsening poverty that gets so bad that it throws the world population into decline.  In essence, if economists and world leaders aren’t smart enough to manage our population to a level where all can enjoy a high quality of life, their stupidity will surely drive it to a level that no one wants.

 


“Scarcity” at Root of Political Polarization?

July 23, 2014

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politically-divided-wisconsin-little-incentive-seek-middle-ground/

The above link will take you to a story that aired on the PBS Newshour on July 18th.  It’s a story about the political divide in Wisconsin and is followed by analysis by David Brooks (conservative and Wall Street Journal columnist) and Mark Shields (liberal commentator).

Brooks’ analysis was particularly poignant.  He explained that he once believed our polarization was a top-down, Washington-based phenomenon, but now sees it as a bottom-up movement, driven by “scarcity.”

The significance of this is that “scarcity” is a term used by economists, primarily to deride those concerned with overpopulation as having a “scarcity mentality.”  It’s an alternative to “Malthusian,” lest the latter term become trite.  You see, economists don’t believe in the concept of “scarcity.”  Man is clever enough to stretch resources and always assure that there is enough for all as our population continues to grow, say economists.

So it’s significant that someone of Brooks’ gravitas sees actual scarcity in our economy that is the driving force behind our polarization.  It’s not a scarcity of natural resources but a scarcity of jobs, a scarcity of income, a dwindling of resources needed to provide adequate health care and of government resources necessary to provide a social safety net.  Such scarcity now pits Americans one against another as they compete for these ever-more-scarce financial resources.  Each side now sees the other as a threat instead of as fellow Americans working toward a common goal.  The haves see the have nots as a threat to strip them of some of their wealth through redistribution schemes.  The have nots see the wealth of the haves as ill-gotten gains that have been taken from them unfairly with the collusion of their conservative politicians.  With each side  perceiving themselves as having their backs against the wall, neither is willing to compromise.  We’ve become like an overcrowded cage full of  animals where all was peaceful until the zookeeper began cutting back on the food thrown into the cage.

This scarcity is the direct consequence of the rising unemployment and worsening poverty that’s inescapable as overcrowding drives down per capita consumption and, with it, employment.  And it’s not merely a national phenomenon, but a global one, as labor forces continue to swell and compete for ever-more-scarce manufacturing jobs just to keep themselves out of poverty.

If Brooks is right (as I believe he is) that scarcity lies at the root of our political polarization, then the polarization and gridlock in Washington is only going to get worse.