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.


A Trump Report Card

April 23, 2019

It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything, and thought it’d be a good time to give President Trump a sort of mid-term report card, albeit a little late.  I’ll grade him in two subjects only – immigration and trade policy – since these two areas address the economic effects of population growth, both actual growth the effect of growth imported through trade with overpopulated nations, the focus of this blog.  Beyond these, little else matters.  What about environmental policy?  Without a focus on stabilizing our population (and virtually all of America’s population growth is driven by immigration), all other environmental policies are doomed to failure.  What about foreign policy?  It’s impossible to project strength in the world if you’re weak on trade.

So, with that said, let’s begin with the good news:

Immigration Policy:  A+

Trump has done a fantastic job on both illegal and legal immigration, each of which had been contributing a million people per year to America’s population growth.  Thanks both to Trump’s zero tolerance policy for illegal immigration and dramatic cuts in legal immigration, the Census Bureau reduced its estimate of the U.S. population by 1.3 million people at the end of 2018.  He spent a lot of political capital in his efforts to get funding for a border wall and, when Congress wouldn’t agree, had the guts to declare a national emergency to obtain the funds.  “What emergency?” the media cried at first, but not for long, when their own reporters in the field began reporting on the humanitarian crisis at the border that resulted from the adminstration’s efforts to enforce the law instead of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration as previous administrations have done.  Now there’s virtually no complaints about Trump’s enforcement efforts or his emergency declaration.  His policies are likely responsible for the fact that increases at the low end of the wage scale are outpacing higher income increases.  Recently, during a trip to the southern border, Trump declared that “Our nation is full.”  Truer words were never spoken.  Ultimately, this is the biggest reason that immigration needs to be reduced.  Trump has done an absolutely fantastic job of reining in out-of-control immigration.

That’s the good news.  Now for the not-so-good:

Trade Policy:  D

Such a low grade may seem surprising and harsh, especially in light of the tariffs on metals and his seemingly tough position with China, including a 25% tariff on some items and a 10% tariff on half of all Chinese imports.  However, it’s those very actions that elevate his score to a “D” from an “F”, the score I’d give to every previous president going as far back as Franklin Roosevelt.  They’ve been a nice start, but fall far short of what we were led to expect from him in the way of trade policy.  Like all previous presidents of the modern era, Trump has been sucked into endless trade negotiations, a ploy that nations with large trade surpluses have used successfully for decades to forestall meaningful action by the U.S. – namely, tariffs.  We were promised that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would be torn up or promptly replaced.  Trump’s administration did negotiate a new agreement, but one that reportedly does little to shrink the enormous deficit with Mexico and it may never even be enacted, if Congress has its way.

Action on China is stalled.  Tariffs on auto and parts imports now appear to be idle threats.  Beyond China, there’s been no action on reducing the trade imbalance with other nations like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and a host of others.  The trade deficit in manufactured goods has continued to explode to new record levels under Trump.  Employment in manufacturing has stalled once again.  Trump sees trade as a venue for demonstrating his deal-making prowess, and he sees tariffs as leverage to use in trade negotiations.  He doesn’t understand that favorable “deals” with overpopulated nations are impossible and a waste of time, and that tariffs are the only way to restore a balance of trade with those nations.  Regarding the ongoing trade negotiations with China, he recently declared that the U.S. will win, whether a deal is reached or not.  He’s wrong.  The Chinese have already won by sucking him into time-wasting talks that, at best, will yield a deal that the Chinese will use to continue to grow their trade surplus with the U.S.  He had them on the ropes with the tariffs and then caved in, letting them off the hook.

In summary, Trump’s trade policy is stalled and our trade deficit is getting worse, not better.  This has been a major disappointment.  He’s wasted valuable time.  As I’ve said many times, a tariff program will produce some pain in the short term as prices rise and companies are slow to build manufacturing capacity in the U.S., but will ultimately yield incredible economic growth once that capacity is in place.  Had Trump been more aggressive with tariffs, the short term pain would have given way to some major economic gains by the time of the 2020 election.  Now, that’s probably not possible and, instead, his economic program is at risk of stumbling into the election.

He’s done a terrific job on immigration but all may be lost if he doesn’t get his trade policy off dead-center.


How did unemployment fall in February?

March 13, 2019

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the economy added only 20,000 jobs in February.  In spite of that number being significantly lower than what’s needed to keep pace with growth in the labor force, unemployment fell – not by just 0.1%, but by 0.2% – to 3.8%.  How can that happen?

It happened in large part because of some really good news – a piece of data that isn’t even a part of the unemployment report.  The official explanation is that the labor force actually shrank a little in February, while the employment level, as measured by the household survey portion of the report, actually grew by 253,000 workers.

But you have to look beyond the employment report to find the really good news that made this happen.  The employment report depends a great deal on the population estimate determined by the Census Bureau.  And in December, the Census Bureau adjusted it’s estimate downward by nearly 1.2 million people – an unusually large adjustment.  Why?  A combination of factors that include the birth rate, death rate and, probably most importantly, the growth in the immigrant population, whether through legal or illegal immigration.  It’s evidence that Trump’s crackdown on both categories of immigration is beginning to have an effect.

As a result, per capita employment has now grown for six consecutive months – something that has happened only  three times in at least the past twelve years.  (The longest such streak was July, 2011 through March, 2012 which occurred as the U.S. emerged from the “Great Recession” of 2008.)  Here’s a chart of per capita employment since November, 2007:  Per Capita Employment.

In addition, the Labor Department reported that hourly wages rose by an annual rate of 3.4%, the fastest pace of increase in quite a long time.

The point of all of this is that, in spite of the rate of growth in the U.S. population slowing and contrary to assertions by economists that population growth is vital to economic growth, there’s been absolutely no negative impact on workers or on the economy.  Per capita employment is rising, along with wages.  It’s evidence that the scheme of using high rates of immigration to suppress wages is beginning to unravel.


Tariff Hysteria

March 3, 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade/trade-wars-are-good-trump-says-defying-global-concern-over-tariffs-idUSKCN1GE1PM

Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere, you already know about the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports that Trump announced on Wednesday.  The reaction has bordered on mass hysteria, especially among “economists.”  I put that word in quotation marks because those who present themselves as experts in the field, but either lack the curiosity required to examine the effects of population growth, the biggest factor driving the global economy today or purposely avoid it because the findings would destroy their credibility, aren’t worthy of being dignified with the label.  One such “economist,” representing a “think tank” whose purpose it is to advance the cause of globalization (that is, the fleecing of Americans to prop up the economies of grossly overpopulated nations), described Trump’s tariff plan as a “return to 18th century trade policy.”  Apparently he doesn’t understand that the use of tariffs dominated U.S. trade policy through the first half of the 20th century, transforming the U.S. into the world’s preeminent industrial power and the world’s only “super-power.”

The reaction on Wall Street was swift, with market indexes falling several percent.  But not the stocks of U.S. steel producers.  Those actually rose several percent.  So what does that tell you?  Unlike “economists,” investors are people who put their money where their mouth is.  Investors fear what this move could mean for inflation and the broader economy, but they know very well it’ll be a big boost to steel and aluminum producers.  If tariffs are good for that industry, doesn’t it stand to reason that they’d be good for others if applied to those products as well?  How about autos?  Electronics?  Appliances?  The fact is that every U.S. producer of every category of product where the U.S. has a trade deficit would benefit from tariffs.

Virtually every media outlet since Trump “tweeted” about the tariffs soon after announcing them has quoted him as saying “… trade wars are good and easy to win …” in an effort to make him sound like a buffoon.  At least the above-linked Reuters article does provide the full quote further down in the article:

“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win,” Trump said on Twitter on Friday.

Put in the context of our massive trade deficit which, in terms of manufactured goods, isn’t just billions but is now approaching a trillion dollars a year, he is exactly right – a trade war would be a good thing and not only would it be “easy to win,” it’d be impossible to do anything but win and win big.  “Economists” and other countries don’t want you to know that.  They want to scare you with warnings of retailiation by other countries:

Europe has drawn up a list of U.S. products on which to apply tariffs if Trump follows through on his plan.

“We will put tariffs on Harley-Davidson, on bourbon and on blue jeans – Levi’s,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told German television.

Wow, that shows you how far down the list of products they had to go to find some that they actually import from the U.S.  And “blue jeans?”  Seriously?  Don’t they know that even Levis aren’t made in the U.S. any more?  Regardless, do you really want to go there, Europe?  Go ahead.  Slap tariffs on Harleys and bourbon.  We’ll retaliate with tariffs on cars.  See how you like that!  How long would Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Porsche and all the others survive without access to the U.S. market?

Another popular warning among the globalist fear mongers is that higher prices will be passed along to U.S. consumers.  The cost of every product that uses steel and aluminum will soar.  That’s utter nonsense.  When foreign steel producers have to raise their prices by 25% to cover the tariffs, will their customers continue buying their steel or will they simply turn to American suppliers that weren’t that much more expensive in the first place?  That’s the whole purpose of a tariff – not to collect revenue and make American consumers pay more, but to force the buyers of those products to switch to American suppliers.

There is a legitimate fear among manufacturers that forcing them to pay more for steel and aluminum, even if it’s only slighly more when they switch to American suppliers, will make them less competitive with foreign imports.  Here’s one example quoted in the article:

But home appliance maker Electrolux (ELUXb.ST) said it was delaying a $250 million expansion of its plant in Tennessee as it was worried U.S. steel prices would rise and make manufacturing there less competitive.

OK, Electrolux, would you change your mind if Trump also levied a tariff on imported appliances?  Not only would you go forward with your planned expansion, you’d probably rush to develop plans for more and bigger expansions.  My point is that these tariffs on steel and aluminum are a good start, but to have a real impact on the economy, they need to be levied on virtually every imported product so that, in every case, American consumers will choose the less expensive U.S.-made products.  Will that stoke inflation?  Sure, but not as fast as the demand for labor would send wages up.

Other fear mongers have raised the spectre of another scary scenario, where heavy buyers of U.S. debt, like China, would retaliate by dumping their bond holdings, driving up interest rates and inflation along with it.  Could they do that?  Sure, if they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot.  They’d be driving down the value of their biggest investments.  And let’s not forget that, as the U.S. trade deficit shrinks in response to the tariffs, the U.S. will be issuing less debt.  So the U.S. will be pulling bond issues off the table as fast as China and others try to sell theirs.  The end result is a wash and their “retaliation” will end up only hurting themselves.

The tariffs on steel and aluminum, on top of a few other small, targeted tariffs (like the recent tariffs on washers) are good, small steps.  But they’re nothing compared to what really needs to be done – the application of tariffs across the entire spectrum of manufactured goods.  To do that, the U.S. needs to withdraw from the World Trade Organization.  Or perhaps it doesn’t matter.  The only power the WTO has is to authorize other nations to retaliate – nothing more than they would do anyway, even if the WTO never existed.

A trade war?  We’ve been in a trade war ever since our country was founded.  The problem is that, with the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 – the forerunner of the World Trade Organization – the U.S. gave up the fight.  The U.S. laid down and let others begin feeding on it like a swarm of parasites.  It’s high time we put up a fight again.


American Millenials Far Worse Off Than Their Parents at the Same Stage in Life

January 16, 2017

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/01/13/millennials-falling-behind-boomer-parents/96530338/

An analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group “Young Invincibles,” released on Friday, finds that the millenial generation – especially white millenials – are far worse off economically than their baby-boomer parents were at the same stage in life – in 1989.  (See the above linked article.)

  • The median net worth of millenials is 56% lower.
  • Median income has fallen 21% in spite of the fact that a larger percentage of millenials (approximately 50% more) have a college education compared to baby boomers.
  • Home ownership is down by 3%.
  • Millenials are saddled with “drastically higher” student debt.

The article observes that “the analysis fits into a broader pattern of diminished opportunity.”

Looking beyond the Federal Reserve data, millenials are clearly much worse off than their parents in many other ways:

  • While most employers offered pensions in 1989, few do today.
  • The cost of health care is orders-of-magnitude higher than it was in 1989.
  • Good jobs were still fairly plentiful in 1989.  Not today.  The example cited in the article of a college-educated lady earning minimum wage making pizza isn’t a one-off.  It’s pretty typical.
  • The millenial generation is famous for depending on their parents for housing and additional support beyond that.  It’s not a matter of immaturity among millenials.  They do it out of necessity.  In 1989, no self-respecting baby boomer would be caught dead living with his/her parents.  There was no need.

None of this should come as any surprise to those who understand the consequences of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.  It’s precisely what I predicted in Five Short Blasts, which I began writing in 1993.  Since 1989, the U.S. population has grown by approximately 25%.  But, worse than that, our effective population density has exploded by 200% since 1989 by economically erasing our borders and attempting to trade freely with badly overpopulated nations who prey on our market and bring nothing in return to the trading table but bloated labor forces, hungry to take jobs from Americans.  Diminished opportunity and worsening poverty is inescapable in those circumstances.

Sadly, most millenials are oblivious to what’s been done to them through globalization, which has been slickly packaged and sold to them as some sort of utopian state where we all live in perfect harmony together, masking the underlying truth – that their economic civil rights have been trampled by the greed of global corporations who feed on population growth to stoke their bottom lines.

 

 

 


“Brexit” Another Failure of Economics

June 30, 2016

Why is it that all the big stuff happens while I’m on the road and unable to comment?  So it was with the “Brexit” vote last week when Britons voted to split from the European Union – the EU.  Well, better late than never.  So the following are some thoughts regarding the “Brexit” vote.

There has already been a lot of analysis of the underlying reasons for the surprising results of this vote.  They focus on three main issues:  immigration, trade, and the fact that Britain was being fleeced by the EU to the tune of about $350 million per day – only about half of which was returned to Britain in the form of “subsidies.”

The real root cause goes much deeper.  For decades, the main thrust of the United Nations has been the eradication of hunger and poverty among undeveloped nations – a noble goal.  But instead of helping such countries by fostering real, organic economic growth that begins with self-sufficiency and nurtures domestic industrialization to meet the growing wants and needs of the people, economists decided on an easier route.  They relied instead on “free” trade and population growth.

There was once a time when nations were free to strike trade deals with one another that were of mutual interest to both.  Both sides benefited.  Each gave something and each got something on terms that worked out to the best interests of both.

But faced with the challenge of elevating the fortunes of undeveloped countries, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization seized on a quick fix – the implementation of a trade regime that would tilt the playing field such that jobs and money would slide from the developed world to the undeveloped world.  “Don’t worry,” they assured the developed world.  “It’ll benefit you, too, when these nations develop into customers for your goods.”

Well, they haven’t, and now we have a system of trade where the rules are rigged in favor of one country over another – where developed countries are forced into trade relationships that are actually detrimental to them and their citizens.  This situation is now referred to as “free trade” while the previous system in which countries were free to make their own trade deals is decried as mercantilism.

The other tool in economists’ bag of tricks is population growth.  Population growth translates to GDP (gross domestic product growth), something that business loves, so the economists found ready and willing allies among global corporations, chambers of commerce and others.  None recognize that such cancerous growth actually degrades the quality of life of individuals and fuels more poverty.  The EU is no different and has seized upon immigration-driven population growth as a tool to prop up GDP.

There is just one problem with this grand scheme – democracy, and the fact that all of the ballyhooed intangible benefits of these approaches couldn’t obscure from the people the fact that they’re getting screwed.  I’ve occasionally high-lighted cracks that have been appearing in “globalization,” mostly in the form of skepticism about whether “free” trade was really any benefit at all for the donor countries or if it was actually dragging them down.  Now comes the “Brexit” vote, ripping a gaping hole in it.

Congratulations to the British people who rejected the econo-babble of the EU elites and applied common sense to their evaluation of what’s become of their country.  And it doesn’t stop with Britain.  Other EU nations who find themselves being fleeced to prop up the likes of Greece and Spain are also ready to jump ship.  In the wake of “Brexit,” EU leaders commented that, with the loss of British revenue, the EU may now be forced to raise taxes and implement even more austerity.  Smooth move, Brussels!

Speaking of dumb moves (dumb from the perspective of the globalists), how about Obama’s trip to Britain in which he chastised the “leave” supporters and threatened that the U.S. would relegate them to 3rd class status in trade negotiations if they did, in fact, leave the EU?  If any Brits were on the fence on this issue, Obama’s comments offered proof that Britain had been subjugated to the interests of the global elite.  Obama may very well be responsible for pushing Brits over the edge.  Yet another foreign policy blunder on his part (right on the heels of his disastrous trip to Japan, during which he was publicly berated by the Japanese president).  Continuing down that tangent, just yesterday he met with the Canadian and Mexican leaders in support of NAFTA, a meeting that the press hailed as “the three amigos.”  Could he possibly have made a more tone-deaf move when the nation is already fed up with illegal immigration from and job losses to Mexico?  Now Obama is known as an “amigo?”

As proof that sentiments that drove the “Brexit” vote go beyond the EU, Donald Trump has also blown a big hole in America’s one-party Republi-crat support for free trade and mindless pursuit of population growth as a crutch for a sick economy that was long ago ceded to the World Trade Organization.  The Republican elite are abandoning him in droves, but voters couldn’t care less.  They’re fed up with their leadership, just as the Brits were fed up with theirs.  America’s “Brexit” from globalization may come in November.

 

 


Overpopulated Nations Sucking the Life out of American Manufacturing

May 11, 2016

I’ve finished my analysis of trade in manufactured goods for 2015 and the news isn’t good.  The effect of attempting to trade freely with nations that are much more densely populated than our own intensified yet again in 2015, dragging our deficit with those nations to a new record.

Check out this chart:  Deficits Above & Below Median Pop Density.  First, some explanation of the data is in order.  I studied our trade data for 166 nations and separated out those product codes that represent manufactured products.  Subtracting imports from exports, I was able to determine the balance of trade in manufactured goods for each.  I then sorted the data by the population density of each nation and divided these 166 nations evenly into two groups:  those 83 nations with a population density greater than the median (which, in 2015, was 184 people per square mile) and those 83 nations with a population density below the median.  I then totaled our balance of trade for each group.

As you can see, in 2015, our balance of trade in manufactured goods with the less densely populated half of nations was once again a surplus, but a smaller surplus of $74 billion.  This is down from $132 billion in 2014 and is less than half of the record high of $153 billion in 2011.

Conversely, our balance of trade in manufactured goods with the more densely populated half of nations was a huge deficit, plunging to a new record deficit of $722 billion, beating last year’s record by $53 billion.

Some observations about these two groups of nations are in order.  Though these nations are divided evenly around the median population density, the division is quite uneven with respect to population and land surface area.  The more densely populated nations represent almost 77% of the world’s population (not including the U.S.), but only about 24% of the world’s land mass (again, not including the U.S.).

Think about that.  With the people living in 76% of the world’s land mass, the U.S. enjoyed a surplus of trade of $74 billion in manufactured products.  But with the rest of the world – an area less than a third in size – the U.S. was clobbered with a $722 billion deficit!  Population density is the determining factor.  Not wages or wealth.  Wealthy nations were just as likely to appear among the deficit nations as among the surplus nations.  Not currency valuations.  Virtually ever currency in the world weakened against the dollar in 2015.  Population density is the key factor that drove these trade imbalances.

Some may point to the increase in the trade deficit as proof that currency values and manipulation are driving the imbalance.  But the data from previous years has shown that no such relationship exists.  A much more likely explanation is that American exports are declining and imports are rising because as more and more manufacturers lose ground to foreign competition, there are fewer and fewer products available for export or for purchase by domestic consumers.  Like a horde of mosquitoes, the overpopulated nations of the world are literally sucking the life out of American manufacturing and, with it, the American economy in general.

So what’s to be done?  “Give free trade enough time to work,” free trade advocates say, “and these imbalances will even themselves out.”  Wrong.  Free trade policy has had decades to work, beginning with the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 and the result has been that the trade deficit with densely populated nations just gets worse and worse.  This happens because free trade theory doesn’t account for the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.

The only remedy that would restore a balance of trade is the same trade policy that the U.S. employed until 1947 to maintain such a balance – tariffs.  The use of tariffs to compensate the U.S. for nations’ inability to provide us access to equivalent markets – markets that have been emaciated by overcrowding – would restore a balance of trade and breathe life back into the American economy.